Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

All the shit that doesn't fit!
If it doesn't go into the other forums, stick it in here.
A general free for all
Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Big RR »

The civil liability case here doesn't really turn on who's individually responsible for what on the set. This is a case of "res ipsa loquitur," meaning that negligence can be assumed just from the occurrence of the incident alone.
True Sue, but there are also defenses based on a reasonable reliance that others have done what they are supposed to do. In the handling of firearms, I am unsure how it would apply, but there are many times where an actor (or a director or a producer) can reasonable rely on the actions of others in doing their jobs properly (e.g. a collapse of part of the set is not the fault of the actor, even if the scene required him to call someone to a specific area (such as a stairway) that collapsed. It may, of course, be the fault of the producer for negligence in hiring the craftsman, but otherwise I would think workers comp might apply against the employer (likely the production company)--then again I am unsure. As for Baldwin being a "producer", I think it will have to be looked at closely--my guess is it is just a vanity title given to Baldwin (maybe to give him a bit more money) and he had no real authority the set, but the facts, as they are uncovered, will tell the truth here.

And I also agree with you on the criminal charges--absent some additional information, I can't see how it will stand. IMHO, it's just an ambitious DA trying to get his 15 minutes in the spotlight, but time will tell. I

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Sue U »

Big RR wrote:
Tue Jan 24, 2023 2:16 pm
True Sue, but there are also defenses based on a reasonable reliance that others have done what they are supposed to do. In the handling of firearms, I am unsure how it would apply, but there are many times where an actor (or a director or a producer) can reasonable rely on the actions of others in doing their jobs properly (e.g. a collapse of part of the set is not the fault of the actor, even if the scene required him to call someone to a specific area (such as a stairway) that collapsed. It may, of course, be the fault of the producer for negligence in hiring the craftsman, but otherwise I would think workers comp might apply against the employer (likely the production company)--then again I am unsure. As for Baldwin being a "producer", I think it will have to be looked at closely--my guess is it is just a vanity title given to Baldwin (maybe to give him a bit more money) and he had no real authority the set, but the facts, as they are uncovered, will tell the truth here.
There is virtually no defense to res ipsa liability in a case like this, as long as all the potentially culpable parties are named: there is no alternate theory of causation that doesn't involve negligence and there is no question whether the harm might have been produced by some other method of injury. My point was only that there is no need for -- and there will likely never be -- any pinpointing of any individual's negligent act or omission as "the" proximate cause of injury. The only issue here is the measure of damages and how much liability insurance coverage the production company/studio has -- and how it might get any other insurers on the project to kick in their coverage as well. (There may be years of litigation to come on indemnification, contribution and policy exclusions, but that's a matter among the insurers.)

As far as workers comp goes, I highly doubt the cinematographer was an actual "traditional" employee of the production company; no doubt she was hired on to the project for her particular professional skills and would be classified as an independent contractor. Because the production company would not have exercised significant control over exactly how she did her work, there is almost certainly no "comp bar" to tort liability.

As I understand it, being a producer on a film generally means that you have raised (or put up your own) capital to fund the project and that you get a share of the profits (if any) the film ultimately generates for as long as they are generated, as opposed to being just an actor paid a single fee for a performance before the cameras. But being a producer doesn't (necessarily) give anyone control over a project beyond whatever financial leverage comes with being a/the money guy.
GAH!

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by BoSoxGal »

Sue U wrote:
Tue Jan 24, 2023 3:48 pm
As I understand it, being a producer on a film generally means that you have raised (or put up your own) capital to fund the project and that you get a share of the profits (if any) the film ultimately generates for as long as they are generated, as opposed to being just an actor paid a single fee for a performance before the cameras. But being a producer doesn't (necessarily) give anyone control over a project beyond whatever financial leverage comes with being a/the money guy.
From what I’ve read, it is routine practice especially in the indie films market to name lead actors as producers in order to increase their compensation where the project cannot provide the usual up front salary that such an actor would command on a major studio project. These actor producers often have very little if anything to do with the nuts and bolts of production beyond their own acting role. Obviously the evidence will reveal how much Baldwin had to do with such things other than offering his opinions which I’m sure he was generous with.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Big RR »

Sue--thanks; it will be interesting to see how it progresses.

BSG--that is my understanding as well, although sometimes it is as much for vanity as money. Indeed, some acotors have required singificant others and relatives to be named as a producer just because they can.

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11266
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Crackpot »

From what I’ve gathered producer is the movie equivalent of manager/ supervisor in most real world jobs with all that implies both good and bad. It’s an easy place to hide dead weight and suck up resources but at the same time without any of them shit wouldn’t get done. Often actor producers are the equivalent of nepotism hires, but, there are also those that know (and even enjoy) the business side of the job. You may notice some known producer names attached to films and tv shows that have nothing to do with their acting. For example Lucille Ball Produced the original Star Trek.

Actors are not always just a pretty face.

The reason I brought this up is historically actors haven’t been charged in similar cases and there were many reports that there were many production level issues going on “on set” and Baldwin was a producer so in theory that charge could stem from that facet of his job.

Is this conjecture? Yes. But, it also fits the facts we know assuming the DA isn’t charging just to score some political points.
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
MajGenl.Meade
Posts: 20704
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
Location: Groot Brakrivier
Contact:

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by MajGenl.Meade »

Don't overlook that "producer" is a handy (at times) device to get an agreement to reduce an actor's pay (cash out of the real producer's pocket) in favor of future receipts. Did Tom Cruise really "produce" the latest Top Gun? He may have done; probably has enough money to toss it in the pot. But he also may have agreed to take less up front, get a piece of residuals (as actor) and in up-front deductions as "producer". Sometimes a producer, co-producer or associate producer is just an investor and nothing to do with running the movie set.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts

Big RR
Posts: 14050
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 9:47 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Big RR »

CP-- I agree that producers are managers, but generally only the manager of the business aspects of the film. They handle contracts and casting decisions, even work with the talent to resolve disputes in many cases, but in most cases are not on the set, nor do they have any direct hand in controlling (much like the CEO of a company has little to do with the manufacturing line). Sure there are exceptions, but for every David Selznick that was often on set, there are many producers that don't even go on the set at all (or maybe once or twice just to make an appearance), much as the general manager of a baseball team doesn't sit on the bench and doesn't travel with the team. Certainly the producer and the production company bears some responsibility for everything that happens in connection with the pictures (as the buck has to stop somewhere), their direct responsibility for what occurs on the set is much more limited.

It will be interesting to see what the evidence ultimately shows about what Baldwin did as a "producer" and what his responsibility was (and whether this rises to the level of criminal culpability. I still think this is just some glory seeking DA seeking to get his 15 minutes of fame in the press by making the charge, and bet it is eventually dismissed before any trial.

User avatar
Long Run
Posts: 6717
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:47 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Long Run »

Prosecution released information to support their charge of involuntary manslaughter. Even with the allegations of many instances of extremely reckless behavior, it still seems like an uphill battle for the prosecution. The article I read from the WaPo did not go into much detail, and included the "damning" charge that Baldwin was on his phone incessantly.

Burning Petard
Posts: 4050
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
Location: Near Bear, Delaware

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Burning Petard »

So why is Alec Baldwin possessing of the untrained eye? And why oh why did any rehearsal include anyone pointing a gun at the cinematographer? Is anybody gonna admit what I suspect--it was just a bunch of dangerously ignorant and arrogant people playing around with guns?

snailgate.

User avatar
Econoline
Posts: 9555
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Econoline »

a bunch of dangerously ignorant and arrogant people playing around with guns?
Hmmm, maybe...either that or a Well Regulated Militia?
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
God @The Tweet of God

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Scooter »

Burning Petard wrote:
Thu Feb 02, 2023 11:00 pm
And why oh why did any rehearsal include anyone pointing a gun at the cinematographer?
A gun was pointed in the direction required by the scene. Whatever or whoever was off camera at the time bears zero relevance to that.
"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
Scooter
Posts: 16540
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 6:04 pm
Location: Toronto, ON

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Scooter »

"If you don't have a seat at the table, you're on the menu."

-- Author unknown

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by BoSoxGal »

From the article linked:
In a statement Thursday night, Morrissey and Lewis said "new facts were revealed that demand further investigation and forensic analysis in the case."

"Consequently, we cannot proceed under the current time constraints and on the facts and evidence turned over by law enforcement in its existing form. We therefore will be dismissing the involuntary manslaughter charges against Mr. Baldwin to conduct further investigation," they said. "This decision does not absolve Mr. Baldwin of criminal culpability and charges may be refiled. Our follow-up investigation will remain active and ongoing."
This stinks to high heaven and is fast becoming one of the worst cases of prosecutorial abuse I can recall.

Baldwin’s lawyers say that they provided evidence disproving the state’s earlier assertion that the FBI claimed the gun couldn’t fire without the trigger being pulled. The FBI has apparently acknowledged the new evidence. But the tag team prosecutors, the second special prosecutor assigned to the case, is releasing statements suggesting that the threat of criminal prosecution still looms large over Baldwin.

Meanwhile, over at the DM and surely many other toxic cesspools on the internet, dozens and dozens of comments suggesting Baldwin has a target on his back now and he shouldn’t think he will get away with this MURDER.

Can we all grasp just how important it is for prosecutors to behave ethically and adhere to the highest standards of conduct when toying with people’s lives?
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

Jarlaxle
Posts: 5370
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 4:21 am
Location: New England

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Jarlaxle »

After the gun was "mysteriously" "destroyed" during testing, too. With the evidence gone, the case is broomed. This is my shocked face. :roll:

The fix is in!

User avatar
Bicycle Bill
Posts: 9015
Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Bicycle Bill »

Meanwhile, over at the DM and surely many other toxic cesspools on the internet, dozens and dozens of comments suggesting Baldwin has a target on his back now and he shouldn’t think he will get away with this MURDER.
What is meant here by DM?  'Direct Message' doesn't seem to make sense in this context.
Image
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?

User avatar
Crackpot
Posts: 11266
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 2:59 am
Location: Michigan

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Crackpot »

Daily Mail?
Okay... There's all kinds of things wrong with what you just said.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Sue U »

Jarlaxle wrote:
Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:25 am
After the gun was "mysteriously" "destroyed" during testing, too. With the evidence gone, the case is broomed. This is my shocked face. :roll:

The fix is in!
Christ, not everything is a fucking conspiracy. It is not at all unusual (and actually quite common) for a piece of equipment claimed to be defective to be destroyed during testing. This does not at all mean that "evidence [is] gone," since the actually significant evidence is not the gun but the result of the testing -- i.e., whether the gun was defective in that it might fire without the trigger being pulled. A jury is simply not going to be able to determine that just by having the gun itself in evidence. You don't need the actual gun at trial to prove anything; there's no dispute that there was a gun involved, the identity of the gun, its source, or who had it at the time. Both the prosecution and the defense would have had an opportunity to participate in the testing process, to record or otherwise document it, or to object to any destructive testing of evidence that would be necessary for trial.

This was a weak case from the start and it doesn't seem to have gotten any better with age (or forensics).
GAH!

User avatar
BoSoxGal
Posts: 18299
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 10:36 pm
Location: The Heart of Red Sox Nation

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by BoSoxGal »

Crackpot wrote:
Fri Apr 21, 2023 1:38 pm
Daily Mail?
Yes, Daily Mail - reported the news before any other outlet I follow. I cannot stomach watching FOX so DM is where I stay in touch with the pulse of the xenophobic homophobic MAGA cult which seems to comprise >80% of the commenting readers there.
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan

liberty
Posts: 4406
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:31 pm
Location: Colonial Possession

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by liberty »

Sue U wrote:
Fri Apr 21, 2023 2:12 pm
Jarlaxle wrote:
Fri Apr 21, 2023 5:25 am
After the gun was "mysteriously" "destroyed" during testing, too. With the evidence gone, the case is broomed. This is my shocked face. :roll:

The fix is in!
Christ, not everything is a fucking conspiracy. It is not at all unusual (and actually quite common) for a piece of equipment claimed to be defective to be destroyed during testing. This does not at all mean that "evidence [is] gone," since the actually significant evidence is not the gun but the result of the testing -- i.e., whether the gun was defective in that it might fire without the trigger being pulled. A jury is simply not going to be able to determine that just by having the gun itself in evidence. You don't need the actual gun at trial to prove anything; there's no dispute that there was a gun involved, the identity of the gun, its source, or who had it at the time. Both the prosecution and the defense would have had an opportunity to participate in the testing process, to record or otherwise document it, or to object to any destructive testing of evidence that would be necessary for trial.

This was a weak case from the start and it doesn't seem to have gotten any better with age (or forensics).
It's good to be the king or one of the ruling class. If this involved one of your enemies instead of an ally, you'd scream conspiracy to the high heavens. Jarl is right something doesn't smell right here. Has someone in the lab at least lost their job?
I expected to be placed in an air force combat position such as security police, forward air control, pararescue or E.O.D. I would have liked dog handler. I had heard about the dog Nemo and was highly impressed. “SFB” is sad I didn’t end up in E.O.D.

User avatar
Sue U
Posts: 8545
Joined: Thu Apr 15, 2010 4:59 pm
Location: Eastern Megalopolis, North America (Midtown)

Re: Alec Baldwin Kills Cinematographer

Post by Sue U »

liberty wrote:
Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:39 am
It's good to be the king or one of the ruling class.
Who do yo imagine is "the king or one of the ruling class" here?
liberty wrote:
Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:39 am
If this involved one of your enemies instead of an ally, you'd scream conspiracy to the high heavens.
You imagine this only because it is what you would do (and literally are doing). Further, Alec Baldwin is not my "ally;" I certainly don't know him and from what I've read about him I think he's probably very much an asshole. But I am very much against charging people with crimes solely because they are famous or you don't like their politics. As I said back in January:
under the New Mexico involuntary manslaughter statute it's an exceptionally weak case on its best day -- unless, as Long Run notes, the prosecutor has some blockbuster evidence beyond what's already been made public.
The prosecutor doesn't seem to have that blockbuster evidence, and now has had to admit he was overreaching on the charge.
liberty wrote:
Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:39 am
Jarl is right something doesn't smell right here.
Jarl is wrong, but I'm sure he's delighted to see you have taken up his argument.
liberty wrote:
Sun Apr 23, 2023 3:39 am
Has someone in the lab at least lost their job?
Why in the world would "someone in the lab [have] lost their job"?

I'd say don't be an idiot but it's clearly too late for that.
GAH!

Post Reply