Once it came out that there were live rounds found in other places that were never mentioned until now... yeah that's not a good look. And while I understand the argument that he's the producer therefore responsible for anything that happens on set they'd be setting a standard that wasn't applied in an awful lot of past on set accidents.
this post was submitted on 12 Jul 2024
199 points (97.6% liked)
movies
1746 readers
273 users here now
Warning: If the community is empty, make sure you have "English" selected in your languages in your account settings.
A community focused on discussions on movies. Besides usual movie news, the following threads are welcome
- Discussion threads to discuss about a specific movie or show
- Weekly threads: what have you been watching lately?
- Trailers
- Posters
- Retrospectives
- Should I watch?
Related communities:
Show communities:
Discussion communities:
RULES
Spoilers are strictly forbidden in post titles.
Posts soliciting spoilers (endings, plot elements, twists, etc.) should contain [spoilers] in their title. Comments in these posts do not need to be hidden in spoiler MarkDown if they pertain to the title’s subject matter.
Otherwise, spoilers but must be contained in MarkDown.
2024 discussion threads
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Which has nothing to do with this decision. This what about due process by the police, nothing to do with actual fault.
As producer he should still hold the final culpability of anyone and anything on site. It would be like letting the owner of a company walk on a technicality, he’s still responsible in the end.
It would be like letting the owner of a company walk...
So standard practice
Sorry I thought I was making it clear that the dismissal was due to the negligence of the police, but even if it had gone to trial it was still an uphill battle to claim his responsibility as producer. If the armorer could be proven to have been a bad hire it could have fallen on him, maybe, but if the production could prove that they took reasonable steps to see if she was qualified but were sadly mistaken that would make it hard to prove negligence.
Personally I would rather it had gone to trial and given the full chance under the law to prove innocence or guilt, dismissal with prejudice is not the same thing as a finding of not guilty even if the result is the same.
It’s interesting seeing the law differences, in Canada this would be considered criminal and anyone up to the owner can be held accountable. I think it’s only been used and upheld a few times though.
Edit, looks like it’s been used more since I checked last.
As producer he should still hold the final culpability of anyone and anything on site. It would be like letting the owner of a company walk on a technicality, he’s still responsible in the end.
What you're describing would be civil liability, not criminal. It would potentially be criminal if a supervisor knew one of their direct reports was doing something illegal and condoned it or did nothing, but that doesn't seem to be the case here
In Canada it would be criminal and not civil.
It comes down to who has direct authority over someone though iirc.
I bet Canada's putting a ton of CEOs in jail, right?
The link actually includes everyone who has been charged under the bill if you read it!
So no CEOs in jail, because the only penalty from a criminal conviction under this statute is a fine
I’m glad someone has and enforces some sane laws.
What about the people who actually committed the crime?
The bullets were turned over by retired Arizona police officer Troy Teske, who is said to be a close friend of Thell Reed, the father of Rust armourer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed. Crime scene technician Marissa Poppell accepted the bullets, but they were not inventoried with the Rust case. Some of the rounds Teske handed over were Starline brass casings with nickel primers which matched the ones that killed Hutchins
Withholding that kind of evidence is unconscionable. It tainted the entire investigation. They basically forced the judge to dismiss the case.
A bunch of people got away with the Panama Papers stuff because of chain of custody shenanigans.
Do you think that was intentional? Like was the prosecution paid off?
It looks like the armorer was a local and her dad’s cop buddies hid evidence to try to help her. At least one prosecutor signed off on it, because she testified that she didn’t turn over the evidence because she thought it was irrelevant.
There is no universe where live ammunition recovered from the scene is irrelevant.
Uh, they weren't recovered from the scene.
The official law enforcement reports were falsified. We don’t know where the bullets they lied about came from. If the police deliberately lied on an official report once, why would you trust the rest of the “official” report?
Courts give law enforcement a lot of blind trust. If you can prove that this trust has been violated, everything they’ve done under that umbrella of trust comes into question.
If it’s this egregious and the prosecutor (s) were okay with it, we don’t even get to have a trial. Why would a fake investigation result in a trial?
The tragedy for the victims is that they’ll never truly know what happened, because the people entrusted with handling the investigation cared more about protecting their own and prosecuting a “Hollywood liberal” than finding out what really happened.
You think prosecutors need to be paid off to hide evidence and generally ignore the rights of defendants?
I'm sorry, there were other live rounds kicking about on the set? How many live rounds does one workplace require? I know how many that one did.
And the armorer is the one who owned the live ammunition. Makes sense she's in prison, but she was so young that I thought, if Alec Baldwin had any liability, it should probably be related to hiring someone who's barely a step past being a child as armorer on a set with real guns.
His main crime was imitating Trump so it makes sense.