Producers should have zero input on this. “I put money into this film. I insist on being allowed to play with every firearm on set” is patently stupid.
Their responsibilities begin and end with ensuring that people have been hired to be responsible for that. They did. Those people were (in my opinion) criminally negligent. But (if memory serves) the AD almost immediately turned and begged for a deal and the armorer makes the average gravy seal look intelligent. Which, like most of these tragic and pointless deaths, speaks more toward industry wide accreditation and vetting processes.
Because, again, just because someone has money doesn’t mean they understand gun safety. And the last thing we want is someone who played Call of Duty while getting a blowie last night insisting they know better.
I think the only nuance I would make is that the investigation should determine if Alec Baldwin, the producer, did his due diligence with the responsibilities that he has on set.
I did not follow the trial, so I don’t know what has been done in this case.
The friction is that Alec is not just an actor on that set, he’s also a producer so he has extra responsibilities.
Yes.
But in that case, the cops and prosecutors fucked up and the judge has taken the right course of action as prescribed by the courts.
No. If the prosecutors fucked up on an otherwise valid case, discipline them and retry the case. Regardless or innocence or guilt, everyone should have a fair trial.
That’s how the court system works. A fair trial also means for the accused. Otherwise, nothing stops the prosecutors of binding the accused in the court system until he runs out of money.
The moment that the prosecution kept an evidence from the defense, the trial wasn’t fair for the accused.
I get the frustration, but the other way around opens up the court system for a lot more abuse than we see now.
If you want to argue about changing the court system, I agree with you, but it is out of scope for that case.
At a range, sure. At home, sure. On the street, sure.
On a movie set, with someone who’s entire job it is to make sure this shit doesn’t happen handing it to you? No
The friction is that Alec is not just an actor on that set, he’s also a producer so he has extra responsibilities.
But in that case, the cops and prosecutors fucked up and the judge has taken the right course of action as prescribed by the courts.
Producers should have zero input on this. “I put money into this film. I insist on being allowed to play with every firearm on set” is patently stupid.
Their responsibilities begin and end with ensuring that people have been hired to be responsible for that. They did. Those people were (in my opinion) criminally negligent. But (if memory serves) the AD almost immediately turned and begged for a deal and the armorer makes the average gravy seal look intelligent. Which, like most of these tragic and pointless deaths, speaks more toward industry wide accreditation and vetting processes.
Because, again, just because someone has money doesn’t mean they understand gun safety. And the last thing we want is someone who played Call of Duty while getting a blowie last night insisting they know better.
I think the only nuance I would make is that the investigation should determine if Alec Baldwin, the producer, did his due diligence with the responsibilities that he has on set.
I did not follow the trial, so I don’t know what has been done in this case.
This is true, but I don’t think it’s a producer’s responsibility to check if a gun is loaded with real ammo or not.
No, but there is a point to be debated that if you hire an incompetent person that kills someone on your set, you could face consequences.
But yes, I agree with you, this isn’t the producer’s job to check if a gun is loaded with real ammo or not.
Yes.
No. If the prosecutors fucked up on an otherwise valid case, discipline them and retry the case. Regardless or innocence or guilt, everyone should have a fair trial.
That’s how the court system works. A fair trial also means for the accused. Otherwise, nothing stops the prosecutors of binding the accused in the court system until he runs out of money.
The moment that the prosecution kept an evidence from the defense, the trial wasn’t fair for the accused.
I get the frustration, but the other way around opens up the court system for a lot more abuse than we see now.
If you want to argue about changing the court system, I agree with you, but it is out of scope for that case.