SAG-AFTRA Defends Alec Baldwin: ‘An Actor’s Job Is Not to Be a Firearms Expert’
SAG-AFTRA Defends Alec Baldwin: ‘An Actor’s Job Is Not to Be a Firearms Expert’
SAG-AFTRA has again defended Alec Baldwin from charges of involuntary manslaughter in the 'Rust' shooting, saying he was not a gun expert.
You're viewing a single thread.
Should an actor be responsible for the fuck ups of the people that are responsible for maintaining firearm safety on set? Of course not.
But in this case, he was also a producer so it could be argued that he was one of those responsible people since he was one of the bosses.
At every job I've ever worked, my boss was responsible for workplace safety.
Edit: I'm not saying that he definitely is responsible, but that it isn't as cut and dried as the union is trying to make it sound.
The OSHA investigation actually found him not responsible in his role as producer for firearms safety.
Movies have lots of producers. And they all have different responsibilities.
That OSHA report will likely be pretty critical to Baldwin's defense, then.
I think the big one is that he claimed "he didn't pull the trigger" where FBI confirmed that the gun was fine and he pulled the trigger. This is basically him lying under oath.
I wonder if he honestly doesn't remember doing it? Most people would feel a lot of guilt if they accidentally killed someone and we are pretty good at lying to ourselves, so maybe his mind is protecting itself from feeling too much pain?
Regardless, it does look pretty bad.
I would assume he could have answer ( I don't remember ). Which also raise the question if drugs were involved in any capacity. I read someone who pleaded guilty also admited to have cocaine on set which at least should qualify this case to be looked at even further to make sure the person who pulled the trigger was not under the influence of any drug.
By the way there is absolutely 0 reason to have actual fire arm on set these days considering it can be added by vfx artists or a probe can be easily be printed which in my opinion add to the neglect case here.
The title of producer can mean anything from being involved in every aspect to being just a name on paper.
Sure. And whether or not he was involved enough to be responsible will be decided at trial. Look, as I said, whether or not he is could be argued and you are proving that; we'll have to see how the trial works out. My point is, it isn't as cut and dried as the union is trying to make it sound.