Comment on Alec Baldwin's manslaughter trial over Rust shooting has been dismissed
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 2 months agoIt doesn’t fall on someone else, the person who fucked up is still culpable, it’s just the people that hired them and directed their work ( you can’t be liable if you don’t direct their work it’s how the chain works) can be held liable too.
You can disagree all you want, but why would your boss who directs you not be liable for what they get you to do….?
AngryishHumanoid@reddthat.com 2 months ago
But now you’re changing your argument. Before you said the producer is responsible for everything that happens on set, and made it sound like the US system is worse for not holding him responsible, but now it’s if he was “directly” in charge of her supervision and didn’t stop her from doing something unsafe, which IS how it works in the US as well, so what have you been complaining about this entire time?
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 2 months ago
I never changed my argument, yes as owner/producer he’s responsible for anything/anyone on site. That’s what being a producer/owner means, you’re liable for any action your company does or doesn’t do.
Uhh… it is, but you also started. Topic that’s entirely different to the article anyways.
No, that was the point the entire time, but you are off on a topic unrelated to the article apparantly.
That’s not how it works in the states, like at all… it would be a civil trial, not criminal, wholefully different things. And if it was actually how it worked, he probably wouldn’t get off on a technicality like this….
AngryishHumanoid@reddthat.com 2 months ago
Here is the list of producers on the movie in question, which are responsible for her actions?
Alec Baldwin Matt DelPiano Ryan Donnell Smith Anjul Nigam Ryan Winterstern Nathan Klingher Grant Hill
You have gone from saying the producer is responsible for everything to saying they have to be the person responsible for overseeing her work. Being the person who hired her does not make any one of them the person who oversees her work.
You are the one who misinterpreted my original comment and claimed it was off topic, I then went out of my way to explain your misunderstanding yet here you are again claiming or pretending I was changing the subject, I suppose that’s easier for you than admitting when you’re wrong.
The charges have nothing to do with why the case was dismissed, it was dismissed because the actions of the police (per the judge) rose to the level of bad faith for failing to disclose highly pertinent information. But that has nothing to do with the charges, the alleged crime, none of it.
And to again explain this to you as simple as possible: they are saying he would have to be the person in charge of overseeing her work specifically. The defense has already made it clear they were going to argue that was not his role on set.
And last before I live my best life by ignoring you for the rest of mine: you said for it to be an uphill battle it would mean no laws and no precedence: that is such a bafflingly stupid statement I’m not even sure how to correct you. It doesn’t mean any of those things, in fact the exact opposite: because of the laws that say he would have to be directly involved in supervising her, and the precedent involving prior court action is EXACTLY why it would be an uphill battle. Go troll another thread far away from me.
SchmidtGenetics@lemmy.world 2 months ago
Jesus Christ dude, if you hire someone who hires someone, who hires someone, etc. the person at the top is responsible since they are the one who vetted the first person and so forth.
Not a hard concept to comprehend. It also applies to directing work, like a boss, producer, owner. Again, not a hard concept to understand, but you seem to think that you must literally hold someone’s hand to be in charge of them, and as you apparently say…. I don’t know how to correct this, since that’s just asinine, moronic and wrong on all accounts.