One of multiple live bullets found on the set of “Rust” by investigators of the 2021 fatal shooting was discovered in the bandolier of actor Jensen Ackles, according to crime scene technician Marissa Poppell.

Poppell disclosed the detail while on the stand during the second day of testimony in the involuntary manslaughter trial of actor Alec Baldwin, nearly three years after cinematographer Halyna Hutchins was fatally shot on the New Mexico set of the Western film.

Asked about the live rounds of ammunition that were discovered on set, Poppell said investigators found some on a prop cart, in a box of ammo and also in two prop gun holsters — the one worn by Alec Baldwin and another worn by co-star Ackles.

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
11 points

Again, I point out that parents of children who killed/died aren’t being held to the same level of responsibility.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Yes they should be, now leave the non sequitur discussion derailing nonsense at the door and stay on topic. Parents being irresponsible dumbasses has nothing to do with a film exec directing his crew to cut safety corners to save a quick buck.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

2 of 2

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 supporter

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Sounds like you agree with my point that this is a selective prosecution and that plenty of folks who did worse skated.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Fuck off, stop arguing in bad faith, it’s patently clear to everyone in this thread you’re arguing in bad faith.

Did you read anything I commented or are you going to strut around like a pigeon on a chessboard arguing a nonsequitur nobody was arguing and everyone already broadly agrees with?

Agreeing that parents should be prosecuted for improperly storing firearms around children, which sidenote a simple fucking google search shows that parents often are prosecuted for improperly storing firearms but they’re not famous actor and producer Alec Baldwin so it doesn’t make national news, is not agreeing to the idea of not prosecute Alec Baldwin for directing his crew to cut corners in safety protocols.

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

All prosecution is selective. Parents do get prosecuted for the death of their children. People get arrested for participating in peaceful protests while neonazis march in the streets. People speed past cops as they’re pulling someone else over. Unless you want to live in a world where a cop watches your every move and locks you away without trial, it’s impossible to prosecute every single crime that happens.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

It was somewhat the same with smoking. We were able to ban smoking from workplaces decades ago by virtue of worker protections and the known health impact. However even today your kid’s lungs have no such protection

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

If a worker dies in a factory line while following instructions, we would all agree that owners of the factory should be held responsible. I don’t see why that concept is so difficult to grasp here and so many people are trying to defend Alec Balwdin. The filming set is a workplace and someone died through no fault of their own, but rather by the conditions set by the owners of this production. There were complaints on set about the safety conditions before this incident happened and it seems that nothing was done to mitigate it. Everyone is trying to throw the armorer under the bus, but she was hired and vetted by management, and even after complaints nothing was changed.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-5 points

First, that’s not the situation. The boss isn’t responsible if a second worker creates a dangerous situation without the owner’s knowledge or consent.

Be that as it may, I’m not defending Baldwin; I’m pointing out that a lot of people with much more personal responsibility don’t get in trouble when toddlers kill.

permalink
report
parent
reply
7 points
*

dangerous situation without the owner’s knowledge or consent.

As I mentioned in my last comment, concerns were raised about safety on set before Baldwin shot someone. So knowledge was there.

And yes nobody disagrees, a toddler shooting themselves in the face from a parent’s unsecured gun should definitely be punishable

permalink
report
parent
reply
23 points

They should be. Is that your point? That they should be, because I think any sane person would agree.

If you’re arguing that the responsible parties in this incident shouldn’t be prosecuted because another person is getting away with manslaughter… well that’s a bit silly isn’t it?

I can’t tell what your intentions are, because nuance is hard via text

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

My point is that this is a selective prosecution. Either treat Baldwin like the parents, or treat the parents like Baldwin. Laws should be applied fairly.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

Bald wins prosecutor is not allowed to do his job, because some other prosecutor didn’t?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Yeah the legal system is not a just system.

That being said, usually the prosecutorial imbalance is against the weak and powerless. In this case, a man with more power, money, and influence than most of us will ever see in a lifetime is being held responsible for cutting corners. Can you imagine if Boeing execs were actually held accountable? Or Chase/BoA/Wells Fargo et. al.? It rarely happens.

Is it unjust that the protection is selective? Yes. In the balance, I’d rather the scales be weighted against the powerful, rather than how it normally is.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points

Not to derail but I just want to say that this is an impeccably crafted and balanced comment.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

I spotted it too, it is well reasoned with an excellent flow of thought. I appreciate that others see it too and commented on it.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

It sounds like you are saying that unless we prosecute EVERY OTHER case on this issue, we should just forget about it?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-10 points

It sounds like you are agreeing with me that this is a case of selective prosecution.

We might have actually saved some kids’ lives if we’d thrown a few negligent parents in jail.

permalink
report
parent
reply
10 points

No. Different people are responsible for bringing those other cases to trial. I agree that those other cases should be tried but that’s a terrible argument for not prosecuting this one.

permalink
report
parent
reply
8 points

Not really relevant for this topic though

permalink
report
parent
reply
-9 points

Many other people seem to find it relevant.

Please explain why the selective nature of the prosecution isn’t relevant.

permalink
report
parent
reply

News

!news@lemmy.world

Create post

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

Community stats

  • 14K

    Monthly active users

  • 9K

    Posts

  • 162K

    Comments