Zero were on trial. Importantly: Zero had the finger pointed at them by Baldwin’s defence team.
One was the co-writer of the script and the general showrunner.
One had a starring role and an active role in decision making on set on a daily basis.
One has a documented history of encouraging reckless behaviour on set, and actively engaging in reckless behaviour.
Is it possible that one of the others also contributed to it in a decisive way? Sure.
Will we ever know for sure? Probably not, the dismissal with prejudice means there is no incentive for Baldwin to implicate them, and the time passed means the prosecutors almost certainly can’t do it without that assistance.
I guess it’s a fine argument that he may have neglected his management duties but what I’m arguing against is this.
I don’t think it’s reckless of him to handle a prop like a prop when he’s given what he would logically assume was a prop. so, you must have countless examples of him being reckless on set? enlighten me
That’s the thing with management duties, they’re duties. If your duties relate to matters which can lead to loss of life, you can be on the hook for manslaughter.
As per the two videos above (also linked below)
Discharging weapons without instruction (for fun), having a set where people treated prop weapons that were capable of firing rounds as toys, firing his weapon at an unsafe distance from living persons where the blanks could do serious harm to them, and most critically at the time of the incident the evidence shows he had his finger on the trigger of a weapon that he was pointing at Ms Hutchins while thumbing the hammer - without the armourer present (and also apparently without instruction from a director, it was on his own initiative).
(Again, Ian Runkle is a pro-gun ownership lawyer, also the second video is the expert witness testimony from the trial of the armourer).
I think you mean six producers who were not found to be involved in a capacity where it was their duty to supervise Baldwin and make sure he didn’t lead to a breakdown of safety discipline - which makes sense since he was the showrunner and thus the one with authority over them (not vice versa).
“I disagree with his objections” isn’t really a meaning contribution to a conversation, particularly when you’re essentially arguing that you know better than a pro-gun lawyer, the prosecutor of the case, the judge and potentially Baldwin’s own defence team.
yea man I’m the best, I’m never wrong.
I really don’t see how playing pretend with prop guns on a movie set should warrant a trial. how would movies and shows get made?
It’ll be interesting to see how it goes since it would be very in character for him to do so, but also he’s likely as susceptible to PTSD as anyone else - and we know next to nothing about the shooter’s motives, etc at this point.
What I find interesting is, people are freaking out all over social media now, saying that this just won Trump the election, and I’d like to know how. How does this gain him new followers? Can he gain some sympathy for surviving an attempt on his life by people who have a heart? Of course. But who, before that shot, told themselves they weren’t voting for Trump, and then afterward, decided that they are? Those who were going to vote for him still are and are just going to be more rowdy now about it, while those who weren’t still aren’t.
Now, those still on the fence, this might turn a few conservative-leaning heads, sure. But then, those who also hadn’t decided before might now decide to vote against him in response to how crazy things are going to get now. Those who were going to sit it out altogether? Same thing; some might vote for him now when they were gonna stay home before, and others who were gonna do the same will now vote in opposition to counter that.
Then, add in that he is still a convicted criminal, the left will now bring up every time he mocked or belittled someone else after an act of violence against them, such as Nancy Pelosi and her husband, and he’s still going to be opening his mouth about awful, stupid stuff. And if he does use this as his go-to subject in speeches now, people will get tired of hearing about it. And even for something like this, the public’s memory is short and we still have months to go.
I really don’t see how this changes the equation beyond the initial knee-jerk, to where people can be saying he’s a lock for the presidency now. Yeah, there’s been instances in the past of failed assassinations helping a candidate, like Ronald Regan, but there’s also times when it didn’t work if the person was just too extreme, like George Wallace.
Yeah, that seems too vague, generic, and cut-and-dry a reason for someone who hates Trump and Republicans. You’d think some of the many valid reasons to hold them in poor regard would be included.
I’m not saying it’s not him, I’m just saying the official report is that they think it’s him. Like he probably had his ID on his body, but they also don’t want to rule out it could be a fake ID etc.
Which means they haven’t really got enough info to speak to motive etc.
Also worth remembering the hazards, such as the time Reddit were sure they identified the Boston Marathon bomber and collectively blamed an innocent party.
September 2020 — Given the opportunity during the Presidential debate, Trump doubles down and tells extremist right wing groups to “stand back and stand by”.
January 2021 — Trump incites the J6 crowd to violence by stating “you’ll never take back our country with weakness” after telling the crowd to go to the Capitol.
September 2023 — Trump states that General Mark Milley should be executed for a post-J6 phone call to reassure China, calling it “an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH” in a post on his failing social media platform.
October 2023 — In a speech to CA Republicans, Trump says “…If you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store."
October 2023 — In the same speech as above, Trump mocks Paul Pelosi who was violently attacked a year prior, tacitly condoning the violence.
October 2023 — In one of his many mandatory courtroom appearances, Trump targets Tish James for violence stating “I don’t think the people of this country are going to stand for it … This is a disgrace. And you ought to go after this attorney general.”
January 2024 — Trump promises “big, big trouble” and “bedlam in this country” if the Federal case against him for plotting to overturn the 2020 election proceeds.
March 2024 — During an Ohio GOP campaign event, Trump says, “Now, if I don’t get elected, it’s going to be a bloodbath for the whole — that’s going to be the least of it. It’s going to be a bloodbath for the country. That will be the least of it.”
April 2024 — Trump suggests that there will be violence if he doesn’t win: “I think we’re going to win. And if we don’t win, you know, it depends. It always depends on the fairness of an election.”
