The manslaughter trial against Alec Baldwin over the fatal shooting of Rust cinematographer Halyna Hutchins has been dismissed. Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer threw out the case over how police and prosecutors treated a handful of bullets, which they failed to turn over to the defence.
“The state is highly culpable for its failure to provide discovery to the defendant,” Judge Sommer said. “Dismissal with prejudice is warranted.” The dismissal came as a surprise as gasps were said to be heard in the courtroom and Baldwin was congratulated by his family and supporters.
More to come…
Which has nothing to do with this decision. This what about due process by the police, nothing to do with actual fault.
As producer he should still hold the final culpability of anyone and anything on site. It would be like letting the owner of a company walk on a technicality, he’s still responsible in the end.
So standard practice
In Canada there’s laws that can hold the owner accountable for stuff like this.
Bill C45 in Canada
Sorry I thought I was making it clear that the dismissal was due to the negligence of the police, but even if it had gone to trial it was still an uphill battle to claim his responsibility as producer. If the armorer could be proven to have been a bad hire it could have fallen on him, maybe, but if the production could prove that they took reasonable steps to see if she was qualified but were sadly mistaken that would make it hard to prove negligence.
Personally I would rather it had gone to trial and given the full chance under the law to prove innocence or guilt, dismissal with prejudice is not the same thing as a finding of not guilty even if the result is the same.
It’s interesting seeing the law differences, in Canada this would be considered criminal and anyone up to the owner can be held accountable. I think it’s only been used and upheld a few times though.
Westray bill c45
Edit, looks like it’s been used more since I checked last.
What you’re describing would be civil liability, not criminal. It would potentially be criminal if a supervisor knew one of their direct reports was doing something illegal and condoned it or did nothing, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here
In Canada it would be criminal and not civil.
It comes down to who has direct authority over someone though iirc.
I bet Canada’s putting a ton of CEOs in jail, right?
The link actually includes everyone who has been charged under the bill if you read it!
So no CEOs in jail, because the only penalty from a criminal conviction under this statute is a fine
And? You seem to have a problem with another country doing better than yours and having some checks and balances. Why are you so upset about this?
I’m glad someone has and enforces some sane laws.
What about the people who actually committed the crime?
Unless they get off on this due process as well, they would also be accountable. As producer he’s responsible for anyone he hires, if he’s not confident, he should verify their work. Thats what being in charge means. You’re responsible, you can’t just pay someone else and say they are, that’s negligence, since if they failed, you failed in your vetting.
I strongly disagree. You can vet someone properly, they can have good references, work experience and history, then they come in and do something stupid and it still falls on someone else? If they did the appropriate amount of due diligence (and can show that) I don’t see why someone else’s mistake would roll up like that.
Where did I say they wouldn’t be responsible…?
It 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….? That’s an absolutely asinine take. Your boss tells you to do something unsafe and they just get off since they can’t be responsible…? What…… ?
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?
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… the states seem to allow multiple ways to separate yourself.
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…. Can you provide a situation where this has happened in the states? I can provide multiple myself for my country.
You even said in a previous comment it would be an uphill battle… that means there’s not laws and there no precedence, so how can you claim the US in the same? What about all the other people saying the US is different? You seem to be the only one saying the US has these laws, yet you also say how it doesn’t in your additional comment information. So which is it…?
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.
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.