Alec Baldwin Fires Prop Gun that Kills Individual on Movie Set

[Flopsweat]

Yes. That was the example I used.

If you want to make your own analogy, you're welcome to. But I was drawing a narrow comparison about putting people in bad situations due to the incompetence of others.

Doesn't seem a valid comparison to me.

 

[RX-79G]

Doesn't seem a valid comparison to me.

Okay. Doesn't seem like anyone understood it or discussed it.

 

[Certaindeaf]

Alec Baldwin didn't load a handgun. He didn't direct himself where to point it. He didn't direct himself to manipulate the hammer. He did receive the information from a technical professional that the revolver was unloaded and noted that.

Insisting that this is not the normal actions of an actor on a film set is not accurate. Suggesting that new protocols be created is reasonable, but has nothing to do with something that already happened.


This strikes me as similar to holding a cop liable for a no-knock warrant going bad. It isn't the cop's fault that they are put in a situation they can't control and someone gets killed. It is the fault of the people that made the policy and assigned the warrant.

As the producer he was legally responsible for everything on the set so he's doubly fuqued.

 

[Flopsweat]

Okay. Doesn't seem like anyone understood it or discussed it.

I understood it. I'm discussing it now. Are you OK?

 

[RX-79G]

As the producer he was legally responsible for everything on the set so he's doubly fuqued.

"Legally responsible" refers to civil law, not criminal. And his contract indemnifies him to an extent for civil litigation. Which is similar to what happens when you try to sue a corporation - the president doesn't necessarily bear direct responsibility.

 

[RX-79G]

I understood it. I'm discussing it now. Are you OK?

Yes. You have stated that you don't agree, but haven't explained why - which would be the normal way to discuss something. Correct?

 

[Flopsweat]

"Legally responsible" refers to civil law, not criminal. And his contract indemnifies him to an extent for civil litigation. Which is similar to what happens when you try to sue a corporation - the president doesn't necessarily bear direct responsibility.

It's like you think you can convince people through sheer force of will.

 

[RX-79G]

It's like you think you can convince people through sheer force of will.

I think you believe I can address your concerns despite not knowing what they are.

 

[Ura-Ki]

"Legally responsible" refers to civil law, not criminal. And his contract indemnifies him to an extent for civil litigation. Which is similar to what happens when you try to sue a corporation - the president doesn't necessarily bear direct responsibility.

We're not talking a about a paper cut, or a stubbed toe, or a part of the set that caused injury, were talking about a willful act that led to the death of an employee! THAT bears full responsibility, and the full weight rests fully upon his shoulders! There is no legal wrangling that indemnifies him from that responsibility, as my good friend certaindeaf says, he is doubly phucked preferably dry, no lube or a kiss after!

 

[Flopsweat]

I think you believe I can address your concerns despite not knowing what they are.

I think you think you know what I was thinking, but I don't think you do.

 

[sobo]

We're not talking a about a paper cut, or a stubbed toe, or a part of the set that caused injury, were talking about a willful act that led to the death of an employee! THAT bears full responsibility, and the full weight rests fully upon his shoulders! There is no legal wrangling that indemnifies him from that responsibility, as my good friend certaindeaf says, he is doubly phucked preferably dry, no lube or a kiss after!

No kiss!!!???

Wow, harsh...

 

[RX-79G]

We're not talking a about a paper cut, or a stubbed toe, or a part of the set that caused injury, were talking about a willful act that led to the death of an employee! THAT bears full responsibility, and the full weight rests fully upon his shoulders! There is no legal wrangling that indemnifies him from that responsibility, as my good friend certaindeaf says, he is doubly phucked preferably dry, no lube or a kiss after!

I don't know what you're talking about. Do you understand the difference between civil and criminal responsibility? You can't jail an employer because their employee killed someone.

 

[RX-79G]

I think you think you know what I was thinking, but I don't think you do.

Okay, so you're just badgering me. Congratulations, you wasted 40 seconds of my life. Moving on...

 

[Flopsweat]

Okay, so you're just badgering me. Congratulations, you wasted 40 seconds of my life. Moving on...

Mirror, mirror on the wall
Who's the trollest of them all

 

[sobo]

You can't jail an employer because their employee killed someone.

What if the employer is the employee that did the killing?

 

[RX-79G]

What if the employer is the employee that did the killing?

That has nothing to do with their being the employer. Civil liability and criminal negligence or manslaughter aren't connected in this case because being the boss didn't cause the death to happen.

Baldwin could be held responsible for his actions, and/or held responsible for his position as producer, but the two have no logical connection that reinforce each other.

 

[Certaindeaf]

"Legally responsible" refers to civil law, not criminal. And his contract indemnifies him to an extent for civil litigation. Which is similar to what happens when you try to sue a corporation - the president doesn't necessarily bear direct responsibility.

Like I said.

 

[Ura-Ki]

 

[Ura-Ki]

Like I said.

I think he missed the part about a "Willful Act" as in Alec PURPOSELY aimed that gun at the camera and pulled the trigger!

 

[sobo]

That has nothing to do with their being the employer. Civil liability and criminal negligence or manslaughter aren't connected in this case because being the boss didn't cause the death to happen.

Generally speaking, you are correct. But in this case, the employer (AB the producer) is also the employee (AB the actor) that killed another employee (HH the DP) of the employer (again, AB the producer). So, in this case, yes indeed, the boss did in fact cause the death to happen, cuz the boss (producer) and the actor are the same person.

Baldwin could be held responsible for his actions, and/or held responsible for his position as producer, but the two have no logical connection that reinforce each other.

I submit that he can be held responsible for his actions as an actor that resulted in the death of HH, and (not "or") for his actions as the producer (alleged poor safety conditions, rushed schedule, etc.) that resulted in the death of HH. I see those two sets of actions as reinforcing each other.