this post was submitted on 13 Jul 2024

251 points (96.7% liked)

News

23296 readers

3644 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

[email protected]

251

Lawyers for ‘Rust’ armourer move to get case dismissed after Baldwin trial collapses (www.independent.co.uk)

submitted 4 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

118 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] [email protected] 139 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

I’m just gonna go ahead and say it.

Failing to tell the defense they had the bullets recovered on set is a freaking stupid move. Like it’s incomprehensible how a prosecutor of any amount of experience- or even an intern at the office in their first week- could make such an abysmally stupid mistake.

To put it another way: someone threw the case, intentionally.

[–] [email protected] 70 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Or, it really was a politically motivated trial and the prosecution was willing to cover up exculpatory evidence in order to manipulate the justice system. Either way, its damning.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I fail to see how the cartridges can possibly be exculpatory.

It doesn’t matter how they got in the gun, or if these were from a case on set. He doesn’t contest that that it went off while he was holding it. Only that it’s not his fault.

[–] [email protected] 43 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (2 children)

Manslaughter is about proving negligence or misconduct. The prosecution case was that Baldwin was at fault as he was negligent handling a gun with live ammunition.

Part of Baldwins defence was that he did not know the gun had a live round in it.

The new evidence was that the live ammo came from the props company, not the armourer, throwing doubt over whether the armourer or Baldwin knew there were live rounds on set or in the gun.

That's a hugely important part of the defence case, and also makes it much hard to prove involuntary manslaughter - it would be negligent to fire a gun knowing there is a live round in it, but if you did not know there were live rounds then does that meet the same level of negligence?

Personally I thought the case against Baldwin seemed tenuous so I'm not surprised this new evidence ended the trial.

This does raise serious questions about the safety of the armourers conviction. She might still be negligent as its unclear how live ammo from the prop company got on set without her knowing but she has not been able to answer that as the evidence was suppressed and she was convicted on the assumption it was entirely her fault the live ammo was on set.

It raises even more serious questions about the behaviour and motivations of the new mexico prosecution team and investigators.

load more comments (2 replies)

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (15 children)

If you're driving and your brakes mysteriously fail, consequently someone dies. Is it manslaughter?

Edit: clarity.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Not quite, you're ignoring the role of the armorer on set in your metaphor.

If you just picked up your car from the mechanic after they were expected to check everything, including the brakes, and the brakes then fail causing you to crash and kill someone... Is it manslaughter? And if so, who is at fault?

You were driving the vehicle, but you would obviously expect the brakes to be in working order since they were supposedly checked immediately before you started driving. The driver would almost certainly not be charged in that case, but the mechanic on the other hand would clearly be negligent, directly leading to the death.

load more comments (1 replies)

load more comments (14 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

This has always been what I believed.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (3 children)

Nah, this sort of shit happens all the time.

Baldwin just has the power and influence to fight the charge.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

Not on high profile cases, no it does not.

(Well, excluding Trump trials … Trump truly hires the best.)

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I think you overestimate Baldwin's current star power. These days, he's a B-lister, at best. Aside from this trial, he hasn't really been relevant in pop culture for a while now.

He's still rich, for sure. But I doubt he's still rich enough to buy a judge, if he ever was to begin with.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

You don't need to bribe a judge.

You need enough money to have a team of lawyers grind through the evidence and find what's been hidden.

Compare this to having a public defender with limited resources. They basically have to trust the DA's office.

What's depressing about this is the DA's office is so used to getting away with this shady shit, that they can't do their job properly even when they know they're under a higher level of scrutiny. Think of all the average Joes that have been fucked over by these guys.

Rich persons justice isn't really about bribing your way out of things. It's about having enough resources that you can force the system to behave, for you, in the way that it's meant to.

This is instead of the usual process that just steamrolls over every poor bastard that ends up in court.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 4 months ago

If there’s one thing we’ve discovered over the years, those in charge are surprisingly cheap to bribe.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago)

The Baldwins are extremely well connected. One of them is married to Justin Bieber. Who just got 10mil for performing at that 350mil Indian wedding. Alec is also a movie producer, which you cannot do if you have no money.

What if that judge's daughter is a huge Justin Bieber fan? Or wants front row tickets to a fashion show or backstage Coachella passes? Or attend a movie premiere? That's all within his scope

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

My cynical self agrees with you. But also, Hanlon's Razor.

[–] [email protected] 62 points 4 months ago (10 children)

She was in charge of keeping things safe, she failed in her responsibilities and someone died. She is at fault and should face the consequences.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago (3 children)

I know right. The logic seems to be "well he didn't get charged for it so I shouldn't be either". Yeah, but keeping weapons safe was your job, not his.

load more comments (3 replies)

load more comments (9 replies)

[–] [email protected] 46 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (8 children)

Classic example of poor/ lack of regulation in USA. (Mah freedum)
Obviously a prop weapon shouldn't even be able to shoot real bullets.
This can easily be accomplished by making the prop weapon 1mm smaller, so real bullets can't even be inserted.
To tell them apart the prop ammo could have a slightly toned line in the length of the bullet, which would be hard to see on film, because it look like a reflection, and could even be pointed away when filming. But would be easy to detect when holding the bullet, because the reflection wouldn't move right when you hold it. It would work kind of like a watermark on bills.

Why the movie industry hasn't implemented better security themselves IDK, except the obvious, not doing it is slightly cheaper. Except the easier positive identification of a prop, would probably make for a smoother work flow, so even if the equipment is a bit more expensive, it would be recouped by smoother workflow, and zero accidents.

But by far the easiest and cheapest solution is a federal law, because that would standardize it for all.

[–] [email protected] 41 points 4 months ago (22 children)

Obviously a prop weapon shouldn't even be able to shoot real bullets.

I know a guy who teaches stage combat for live theater and have seen him on more than one occasion talk directors out of using prop firearms that fire blanks (think something akin to a starters pistol). These guns have filled barrels, etc. so there’s no way they could ever fire an actual projectile.

One of the huge problems with these sorts of guns is that they’re very prone to misfiring. For whatever reason the manufacturing quality of both starter guns and the blanks they use just isn’t as good as real firearms. The last thing you want in live theater (which I’ve seen more than once) is for an actor to pull the trigger and hear a click instead of a bang.

Granted they could just re-shoot a movie scene if this happens, but that costs time & money, which they absolutely hate wasting.

Your idea of using smaller caliber bores, etc. likely wouldn’t prevent this sort of thing because either the quality would again suffer due to the lack of demand, or some idiot would still produce real ammo for it, or at least a projectile firing blank.

Movies like Rust use revolvers because that’s what cowboys would have used. They want the guns to look real, which means the cylinder should look like it has real bullets in them and not blanks, especially in close-up shots where you can clearly see a gun. That’s ultimately what killed Brandon Lee on his movie set. The special effects team botched rigging the bullets so they wouldn’t fire. They removed the powder but didn’t remove the primer cap, and at close range that was still enough to cause trauma when Lee was shot.

I also know a guy with 40+ years in the movie special effects industry who actually writes OSHA safety regulations for the industry. They’re “written in blood” due to events like Brandon Lees death, and when followed properly everybody is safe. He wasn’t involved in any way with the Rust production, but he was extremely pissed when he started hearing what’s been reported. He said it sounds like pretty much everybody involved from the producer on down ignored those regulations, and he had no problem with folks like Baldwin facing charges as a result.

[–] [email protected] 34 points 4 months ago

Minor nitpick: the primer in the botched dummy cartridge wasn't enough to fire the bullet, but it was enough to unseat to it from the case and lodge it in the barrel. Later, a normal blank cartridge was fired while the bullet was still stuck in the barrel. The powder in the blank was enough to dislodge the bullet and propel it to lethal velocity.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 4 months ago* (last edited 4 months ago) (6 children)

I work film and am outraged at the dismissal. What a lot of people neglected to grasp is because they were focused on whether or not Baldwin pulled the trigger is that the trigger wasn't completely relevant to the crime.

Even if Baldwin wasn't the one holding the gun, even if was in the hands of a completely different actor, he should have been charged as part of the Producers for failing to provide a safe work environment. When these sort of things happen we should be asking who was in charge of providing a safe environment, were they made aware of the dangers and why didn't they stop them. If you are fronting the money, have creative control and hiring and firing power and are cced on safety issues your crew brings up as concerns it's your duty to make sure your crew is safe... And there were so many red flags on Rust you could have seen them from fucking space. People were leaving the show because they didn't feel safe. Saying a seasoned actor / Producer would have been unaware while not just being on set but directly interfacing with the process is complete ludacris.

We talk about Brandon Lee but we should be talking about Sarah Jones. When she was killed by unsafe choices made by Production three out of four Producers on the project, everyone who could not claim complete perfect ignorance of the choices made, were charged criminally.

This is a sad day for American film labor. Appearantly bosses have no direct liability to keep us safe anymore.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Even if Baldwin wasn't the one holding the gun, even if was in the hands of a completely different actor, he should have been charged as part of the Producers for failing to provide a safe work environment.

Then you're advocating for a fundamental change to way America manages workplace safety. If Baldwin hadnt been the one to pull the trigger he would never have been charged in a million years. Criminal charges require some level of intent , including involuntary manslaughter or negligent homocide. Unless you can find communications that show that the producers knew the workplace was unsafe and purposely didn't take action (not acting sufficiently probably wouldn't be enough), no charges were even possible.

At most the family of the deceased would have had a strong civil cause of action against the production company, because that's how workplace safety is handled in 99 percent of cases in the US. That civil liability can then be quantified, analyzed, and insured against. I'm not saying this is a good thing , but criminal charges for company owners have never been how these things have been handled.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 4 months ago (1 children)

Baldwin's stunt double accidentally discharged a live round under very similar conditions to the lethal event shortly before the fatal accident. Crew members had lodged formal complaints to the Production Manager and many left in protest when these issues were not addressed because it being a non union show there was no other authority to appeal to for better safety standards. The number of armourers they had was not nearly enough for the volume of the show. It not just that they hired crappy ones that violated every common sense rule that exists in the wider body of film. This was a firestorm of factors.

A lot of the issues are that people do not understand film structure, safety culture and just how regimented things are when done properly. The burden of context required is high and the structure of productions as temporary entities makes it really hard to prosecute and honestly if we weren't dealing with a face people know this would be easier. The fact he was literally holding the smoking gun means you have two separate but related culpabilities.

People have been charged in film for these incidents in the past. The fact the prosecution didn't adhere to proper process does mean there should be a redo... But to dismiss it with prejudice sends a message to these indy films that playing with fire and ignoring flagrant safety violations that would have you instantly shut down on a union show is okay and that is unacceptable.

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago (1 children)

You're 100% right all throughout your comment chain. I'm similarly outraged.

I have an eclectic employment history that includes set safety and theatrical firearm safety. Based on the information available, production was grossly negligent here.

Just like any other industry, if employees are harmed due to negligence, those responsible for that negligence should be held accountable. Given Baldwin (and production in general) was aware of crew concerns, safety gaps, and previous near misses and had the ability to address those issues but failed to do so, they all should absolutely be held accountable.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

They should be. In cases like this, and Boeing, is infuriating that it's always a low-level fall guy that goes to prison, and never the managers and execs that personally made the decisions that led to the deaths.

Like you said, it requires proof, but what I've heard is that the competent film crew had issues with production, so they got replaced with people like Hannah Gutierrez-Reed who were far less qualified: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment-arts/business/story/2021-10-22/alec-baldwin-rust-camera-crew-walked-off-set

Frankly, to me it is unacceptable that people can decide to cut corners like that, and when people die as a result, the company pays a fine (as with Boeing) and the people ultimately responsible go on leading the company (or film production or whatever).

load more comments (5 replies)

load more comments (20 replies)

[–] [email protected] 23 points 4 months ago (2 children)

I’m all for additional security measures but they flat out admitted to not checking individual ammunition (blanks, live, and dummie rounds), which already have visual and auditory differentiators. People didn’t take their jobs seriously and a woman is dead because of it, the change needed, regardless of anything else, is ensuring people take the fucking job seriously or everything gets halted on the spot before an accident happens.

[–] [email protected] 10 points 4 months ago

I still don't understand why they had live ammunition onset at all. Apparently it was there so they could shoot some Coke cans with the gums afterwards? If that's the real reason she brought them she deserves to go down because that's bloody stupid.

load more comments (1 replies)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (1 children)

This can easily be accomplished by making the prop weapon 1mm smaller, so real bullets can't even be inserted.

You may soon learn about different calibres. Firstly, they exist.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 4 months ago

8mm parabellum, 6.62x51, 6.62x39, 4.46x45, 11.7x108...

load more comments (5 replies)

[–] [email protected] 11 points 4 months ago (2 children)

Is the movie still coming out?

[–] [email protected] 6 points 4 months ago

lmao

[–] [email protected] 5 points 4 months ago

I don't think they finished filming.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 4 months ago

That's not exactly surprising - I'm pretty sure a first-year law student would do as much. The real question is will it actually get dismissed. Normally I would suspect not, but we live in the weirdest fucking timeline, so who the hell knows.

load more comments