No, but if Baldwin knowingly hired someone dangerous, that could be an issue. Of course there are 6 other named producers on the film. Plus a bunch of production companies. And directors. And a bunch of other people who are probably much more responsible.
It’s unlikely Baldwin made any decisions with regards to the guns that appeared on set, but of course we’ll have to wait and see.
I’m no expert, but I do think it does, yes. They are the ones in charge of correctly hiring the armorer. It’s one of the things that the higher up person would also be held liable. Again, no expert, this is just what I’ve heard around this situation.
Yeah the article doesn’t do a good job at explaining that. I feel for the guy, this is horrible, but he wasn’t just a performer, he was a producer.
Edit: meant to reply to andonyx
Does that matter that he was also a producer? The producer isn’t supposed to be a firearms expert either.
No, but if Baldwin knowingly hired someone dangerous, that could be an issue. Of course there are 6 other named producers on the film. Plus a bunch of production companies. And directors. And a bunch of other people who are probably much more responsible.
It’s unlikely Baldwin made any decisions with regards to the guns that appeared on set, but of course we’ll have to wait and see.
I’m no expert, but I do think it does, yes. They are the ones in charge of correctly hiring the armorer. It’s one of the things that the higher up person would also be held liable. Again, no expert, this is just what I’ve heard around this situation.