It’s stable for now. My company has been getting people back into the office through several attempts. They haven’t given up, and they made sure to make that clear, just a work in progress.
A couple of years ago, before the AI boom, a guy on Reddit was absolutely convinced (to the point that he started Reddit stalking me over it) that I was a rogue AI. At one point, I even took a photo of myself (censoring my face obviously) holding up a napkin with his username written on it in sharpie. He said it was photoshopped.
My point is that once you make this sort of accusation about someone, the conversation is basically over. They’ll never convince you that you’re wrong and there’s no point in talking to them if you’re right.
Yep, I’ve gone extreme lengths and they always move the goalposts. At some point you just learn to block the weirdos who think “If they disagree, they are a robot!”
I love the idea of POC making this a minefield. Set a precedent in favor of Mr. Jackson here, then spread news of it. Every time a POC gets turned down, they might try again with a white name and get a payout, and once it hits companies hard enough, they have to adjust how they hire. Make them scared and cost them money!
I’m glad to see this going in. Rampant bot and Russian accusations are poison to online discourse, let alone that Lemmy is such an irrelevant target I’m not sure the GRU even know it exists. That’s not to say I’d put it past individuals here to sockpuppet or build downvote bots, but that’s not something a regular poster has enough information to figure out and for every correct accusation there will be dozens or hundreds of false accusations destroying the purpose of a message board.
while I agree in general with the sentiment, there are bots/whatevers here. not nearly as manny as on, say, twitter or reddit, or face book, but they’re here. you can see the most-obvious ones as they drop advertisements for random stuff in places like ‘news’ and ‘world news’ Mods are very good at yeeting those quickly.
There was even one marketer that created their own instance of lemmy to flood the fediverse with. though I think that got defederated pretty quickly.
again, you’re absolutely right that the accusations are going to be mostly wrong.
If you bring a case against someone in bad faith, you shouldn’t be able to prosecute it again when you get caught. Otherwise there’s no consequence for the state when they don’t play by the rules.
Tbh, they should get disbarred as well. If playing dirty just turns into a stroke of luck for the accused and nothing more, it doesn’t really do much to stop the prosecution from doing it again. They get paid to play dirty and just move on to the next one when caught.
Exactly where I was going with my question. There would need to be steep penalties for being caught trying to undermine the process. Even if they had made an honest mistake, I feel the individuals holding the power of a prosecutor should be expected to held to a higher standard, and therefore higher consequence.
The state government’s own prosecutor, and perhaps even law enforcement, have intentionally withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. How do you perceive that the right move is to give them another chance to frame the defendant? Why would they want to hide evidence if they had a solid case? We’re literally talking about a conspiracy here, one tied to law enforcement and the state government. How do you figure that a fair trial can be held at this point?
The prosecutor may very well be disbarred, here, and I would not be at all surprised if this withholding of evidence causes the armorer’s case to be overturned, as the evidence was relevant to (and withheld from) that case, while it was actively being tried. There will likely be civil lawsuits brought against the state over this.
I am not a lawyer, and neither are you from what I can tell, so maybe it would be best to read what actual lawyers have to say about the matter before sharing your opinions. That’s what I did. Highly recommend.
Yes, I’m very much in favor of those protections if acquitted. Usually, dismissal with prejudice is for whatever the “vexatious litigant” equivalent is for public criminal prosecution. Where there is misconduct on behalf of the prosecutor, the case should be retried fairly.
I was slightly torn on this one from a technicality standpoint, but not about the simple logic of it all. Disclaimer: It’s been a while since I read all the details on this case.
For some reason, the armorer somehow allowed live cartridges on set and that is super bad. However, anyone that holds any kind of weapon should treat it like a weapon, especially if it is not marked as a prop or isn’t visibly disabled.
It was a failure of the top two gun safety rules: Always treat a gun as if it is loaded, and, never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
The death of Brandon Lee years ago should have underscored how even prop guns can kill.
Edit: Are there points that are incorrect here? Weapon safety is super important…
never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to kill.
It’s a bit unclear to me why he did that, but if he was practicing something he had to do in the movie, then that’s an exception. The claim is he pointed at the camera, which is plausible, but cameras have operators. This is why there is an armorer role and no live ammo can be on set.
If he was goofing around, that’s completely different, but haven’t seen sufficient clarification
Yeah. From the summary I heard on the radio yesterday, it sounded like there was evidence of him trying to be safe with it, like you mentioned the camera operator, there was a clip of him asking the operator to move to the other side of the camera so he wasn’t aiming at them. And they said it fired when he was decocking it and the hammer fell, not because he pulled the trigger.
But there’s also a bunch of complications due to stuff like the armorer being replaced and the new one apparently being unqualified, and for that reason he should bear responsibility as the producer having control over that decision.
He clearly bears some responsibility as Producer, although that probably extends to other producers and the Director. But as the person who was holding the weapon, there is personal responsibility as well, and it’s not clear how much
The only exception to point a gun at somebody is to protect life. If you can’t film a shot without pointing a real gun at someone, that shot doesn’t need to be made.
Well you better let hollywood know they cant use guns anymore in movies or TV shows. Very real guns are used non stop in the entertainment industry, and they all point at somebody.
Thr truth of the matter here is that real weapons look real, so they will always be used. Hollywood has impressive safeguards. This movie has a real fuck up armorer who not only didn’t enforce them, but who directly undermined them. She was convicted of manslaughter for it.
Baldwin pulled the trigger, but based on testimony he was asking people to move aside and was trying to be safe with the weapon, even though he thought the armorer had already made it safe. That points to an honest attempt to treat the weapon correctly, even if it all went bad.
One thing: they try not to actually point the guns at people. If the shot is framed so that you can only see one person, there’s probably no person out of frame. If it’s a long shot with two people, they’re probably aiming a bit to the side so that it still looks right on camera. In a big war scene, they’re aiming between and over the people.
So the claim m is pointing the gun at the camera. Also the operator was asked to move so the gun wouldn’t be pointing at them. Sounds reasonable to that point, then it gets murkier
So many movies have handled this. Aside from rare accidents (which are tragic), the industry has decided professional supervision removes the rule regarding pointing and killing
And there's the added layer of Baldwin being the producer, and so he's the guy who hired the crappy armorer in the first place.
But ultimately none of that matters now. The reason this case was dismissed is not because of any of those questions of who's responsible for what on the set, it was dismissed because the police and the prosecutors withheld evidence from the defense.
You do not withhold evidence from the defense in a criminal trial, that's a huge no-no.
I don’t think his criminal liability is any different between him being a producer or an actor. He was criminally charged for manslaughter because he was the one who pointed the gun and pulled the trigger. It had nothing to do with his title or role in the movie’s production.
Civil liability is an entirely different thing. I would argue his civil liability as the producer is probably greater than it is as the actor. An actor would in theory have very little to do with the overall production and the handling of firearms on the set. The producer on the other hand could easily be proven as responsible for systemic failures in basic safety protocols.
They are when you're holding an actual trial. You can't try both criminal and civil charges simultaneously, the two processes are quite different from each other.
The friction is that Alec is not just an actor on that set, he’s also a producer so he has extra responsibilities.
Yes.
But in that case, the cops and prosecutors fucked up and the judge has taken the right course of action as prescribed by the courts.
No. If the prosecutors fucked up on an otherwise valid case, discipline them and retry the case. Regardless or innocence or guilt, everyone should have a fair trial.
That’s how the court system works. A fair trial also means for the accused. Otherwise, nothing stops the prosecutors of binding the accused in the court system until he runs out of money.
The moment that the prosecution kept an evidence from the defense, the trial wasn’t fair for the accused.
I get the frustration, but the other way around opens up the court system for a lot more abuse than we see now.
If you want to argue about changing the court system, I agree with you, but it is out of scope for that case.
Producers should have zero input on this. “I put money into this film. I insist on being allowed to play with every firearm on set” is patently stupid.
Their responsibilities begin and end with ensuring that people have been hired to be responsible for that. They did. Those people were (in my opinion) criminally negligent. But (if memory serves) the AD almost immediately turned and begged for a deal and the armorer makes the average gravy seal look intelligent. Which, like most of these tragic and pointless deaths, speaks more toward industry wide accreditation and vetting processes.
Because, again, just because someone has money doesn’t mean they understand gun safety. And the last thing we want is someone who played Call of Duty while getting a blowie last night insisting they know better.
I think the only nuance I would make is that the investigation should determine if Alec Baldwin, the producer, did his due diligence with the responsibilities that he has on set.
I did not follow the trial, so I don’t know what has been done in this case.
On a movie set where everything is fake and you have an on-set armorer whose job it is to make sure everything is, indeed, safe, it’s a little bit different.
There’s no expectation that a gun on a movie set would be real and firing real bullets.
I keep trying to explain that to people too. The whole point of having an on-set armorer is so the actor can stay in their headspace and not have to worry about checking to see if a gun is loaded with live ammo when their character is supposed to assume it is.
You either keep yourself in the headspace where your character is shooting a loaded gun and you give a good performance, or you do firearm safety checks. It can’t be both. Maybe you’ve never done any acting, but it really can’t be both.
Again, not if you want a good performance. And I am guessing your acting did not involve shooting a realistic weapon on a realistic set in a major motion picture.
People's responses to this comment really highlights the defects in the US gun culture. Justifying Alec's handling of the gun is the issue that we have, when guns are around you act like all of them a load and you handle them as such until you personally verified that it is unloaded and even then you deff don't fuck around with it.
When people act like this, accidents really should not happen. When they do, people should reflect on why it happened, instead of focusing on cover up and blaming lower level wage slave.
Would you not expect someone driving a semi truck on a movie set to know how to drive safely even if the production is paying some dude to be an “Automobile Safety Coordinator”?
The actor that played gimli is over 6 foot tall. There’s never been a 200 foot tall lizard attacking Tokyo. You can shoot a movie with guns safely without violating the most basic safety rules.
If you hire roofers, tell them to fuck off when they give you a safety orientation, and you’ve already seen them drop two hammers off the roof, can you really say it’s not your fault when you get clobbered?
Ok, so you’re an actor. You pick up the gun, you see bullets in it. You were trained that these are dummy rounds. You are operating in a professional environment where you were trained to expect what you have found.
What do you do?
Ok say you object, ask for a review. They review it. You pick up the gun, you see bullets in it. Now what do you do?
Half cock the pistol swing open the load gate and spin the cylinder 6 times. If you see a primer then you stop and ask a question. This isn’t a 30-minute project, it takes 30 secs. Dummy rounds don’t have primers, they even drill them so that it is obvious. 30-sec check.
All guns are loaded until you verify that they are not.
They have rounds with primers and bullets but no powder for close up shots. So even checking isn’t 100%. That’s why the armorer is the one who fucked up. Now maybe Baldwin may have played a role by cutting corners in production, but he’s officially off the hook for that now so…
I mean if Rittenhouse can drive over state lines to counter a protest ,kill 3 people, claim self defense, and be found innocent, than certainly a man cutting corners by trying to save money on a film he’s producing, staring in, and directing certainly can have his case dismissed with prejudice because of willful mishandling of evidence by the police and gross misconduct of the prosecutor.
Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer dismissed the case with prejudice based on the misconduct of police and prosecutors over the withholding of evidence from the defense in the shooting of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the set of the film “Rust.”
“Grr I am so angry the police withheld evidence so you weren’t able to be properly charged that I’m going to make sure no one can ever charge you for it again this effectively ensuring the police and prosecutors won”
"We can't possibly determine the truth in this circumstance because officers of the court and the law both conspired to establish a pre-determined outcome by misusing their authority and resources, so we'll ensure that you can't be charged again."
Maybe cops and lawyers should play by the rules if they want the law to put people in prison.
Well, then I guess everyone involved got what they wanted. Are you upset because things didn't go the way they were never going to go? It was obvious from the outset that he would never step foot in prison even outside of this conspiracy to withhold evidence.
(Northern) New Mexico is a fairly left leaning state that increasingly gets a lot of money from the film industry and a shocking number of celebrities live out near Santa Fe. Considering the long history of tragic and pointless deaths due to poor safety practices on film sets, there is a very strong incentive to not prosecute these crimes.
But that would be the DA and prosecution, not the cops. Who are, like all cops, right wing dipshit bastards. And New Mexico has increasingly had conflicts between the government and the police with cops openly refusing to enforce laws they don’t like.
So yeah. Kind of a shitshow all around. But for anyone to think the cops are going to bat for Alec Baldwin? Holy shit.
The state should not be able to keep charging someone till they get it right. Thats the principal behind this dismissal. If the state can keep coming back to charge you we might as well be the Soviet Union.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.