A court ruling on Friday put an involuntary manslaughter case against Alec Baldwin on track for trial in early July as a judge denied a request to dismiss the case on complaints that key evidence was damaged by the FBI during forensic testing.

Judge Mary Marlowe Sommer sided with prosecutors in rejecting a motion to dismiss the case.

Defense attorneys had argued that the gun in the fatal shooting was heavily damaged during FBI forensic testing before it could be examined for possible modifications or problems that might exonerate the actor-producer.

The ruling removes one of the last hurdles before prosecutors can bring the case to trial with jury selection scheduled for July 9 in Santa Fe.

  • Delusional@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    5 months ago

    He should just delay the trial and run for president so he can get immunity. It’s working so far for trump even though he is a literal traitor so it should work for Alec.

  • 555@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    5 months ago

    It kind of feels like they’re throwing Alec Baldwin under the bus for this. Obviously the quartermaster needs to get in trouble

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      She already did. Pretending the guy that pulled the trigger and is a producer doesn’t also share blame is disingenuous though.

      • RedC@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        5 months ago

        For real, everything Alec Baldwin comes up there’s always this what about game for blaming other people. They’ve already punished other people, he’s next.

      • circuitfarmer@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        4 months ago

        I don’t disagree, but I do wonder where the line is. Is there no room for accidents? Is someone to be on the line after Alec Baldwin?

    • explodicle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      4 months ago

      Prosecutors allege that the two did not follow proper safety protocols in a number of ways. “On the day of the shooting alone, evidence shows that no less than a dozen acts, or omissions of recklessness, occurred in the short time prior to lunch and the time of the shooting, and this does not include the reckless handling of the firearm by Baldwin,” the statement says. “Baldwin, by act or omission or failure to act in his position as a producer, directly contributed and/or failed to mitigate numerous reckless and dangerous actions during a very short time period.”

      Source

    • RedC@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      11
      ·
      5 months ago

      If by “throwing under the bus” you mean punishing those involved, especially the one that pulled the trigger on a firearm that did not malfunction, then yeah we are. I’ll never understand why people defend him so much, he made a huge awful mistake, and just like anyone else he needs to see the consequences.

      • aturtlesdream@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        5 months ago

        Because in the film industry, actors are not the ones responsible when it comes to firearms. There are armourers/props, people, and even assistant directors who are responsible for on set safety, actors and crew trust other departments to do their job correctly and safely. There are so many rules and regulations for how guns are handled on set, on every set I have worked on guns were locked in a safe with the armourer being the only one with the key, they would have to have their eyes on the weapon at all times with no exceptions when it was outdside the safe. You don’t hold an actor responsible if there is a stunt gone wrong or a piece of the set falls down because it isn’t their job unless he was behaving recklessly or outrageously. Although he may hold some culpability due to his role as a producer and the financial stuff, i.e., budget cutting, hiring inexperienced crew, etc. I can’t stand the man myself, but he is not the one who is most responsible for this incident

        • RedC@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          5 months ago

          Ultimately the person holding the gun is responsible for what happens with said gun.

          • ashok36@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            14
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

            That’s not true on movie sets though. Actors rely on armorers to keep everyone safe. Expecting actors to also be responsible would be unduly onerous. The system, when it works, works incredibly well. There have only been a handful of firearms accidents on sets. Which is crazy seeing as how almost every movie these days has guns in it somewhere.

            The rust shooting had failures at multiple levels but the actor isn’t responsible for those failures.

      • 555@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        ·
        5 months ago

        The quartermaster is responsible for the operation of the guns. There never should have been live ammo on the set.

        • RedC@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          I agree with no live ammo. But it’s crazy to me that people hop to his defense when it would taken seconds for him to make sure it wasn’t loaded. Regardless of everyone else’s job. I know whenever I’m handed a firearm, the first thing I do every time is check if it’s loaded.

          • 555@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            5 months ago

            Well, that firearm shouldn’t be capable of firing live rounds. It’s a movie prop. There should never be a question if it’s dangerous, because the answer will always be “no”

            • RedC@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              5
              ·
              5 months ago

              Sure that should always be the case. But this time it wasn’t. And because of his actions someone died. As an actor and a producer he should never have even had a chance of firing a live round while they weren’t filming, but he did. If the round never hit anybody this would be an entirely different case, unfortunately that’s not how it went down.

              • 555@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                4 months ago

                As a producer, a fine. As an actor, nothing.

                The quartermaster should get manslaughter and a host of other negligence charges.