Alec Baldwin charged for shooting;

It's never as simple as you think.

Analysis of the events and circumstances, and commentary by a lawyer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXmAeMQCvZQ

So, there is a part where he's an executive producer and may have ignored warnings regarding safety.

From my own standpoint I can understand how a certain amount of responsibility lies on him too. If I were handed something that looks like a gun or a knife, I would probably check to make sure it isn't a real gun myself.

Especially in the US, where tragic accidental gun-related deaths and injuries happen every day.

The armorer trial was pushed back to Feb 21st of this year.

And even though it's a prop, it should still be handled as if it was loaded at all time, not point it at anyone unless necessary, etc.

It may not entirely be his fault, but he was still careless.

Public scapegoat.

Edit: Alec Baldwin is a known Democrat and caricatured Donald Trump famously on SNL. This is clearly a hit job on him because of his stance.

Sir / madam, this is a shitpost, not a lecture on gun safety

If they practiced proper firearm safety there wouldn't have been real bullets in a gun that's supposed to be loaded with blanks, no?

I mean, tbf, you do not need live ammo to make a film... The other examples do need -want for the private case- so I do not think is comparable.

Umm. No. Sorry gunna pull my union card on this one since this is my Industry and while I am not an armorer or a props person I am emeshed in their understanding of property on a set as an On set dresser.

There is a legal duty of care held by everyone who handles a prop weapon. Furthermore there is a duty of care held by Producers on a show. Baldwin was not just an actor, he was a producer on Rust which means he had hiring and firing power.

Regularly this is how prop weapon safety works.

Prop weapons are only handled by an armorer who must maintain a full supervision of the weapon. It can never be used with live ammunition.

Loading can only ever take place by the props person (non union exception) or a designated armorer who must have an up to date licence.

Any mishandling of the weapon up to this stage leaves the armourer open to criminal liability. If someone steps in to this process at this stage they might take the lions share of liability. If an actor or someone who is not the props person charged with care of the weapon grabs it for instance without a hand off.

During the hand off of the weapon to an actor the props person does a last physical check of all the rounds in the weapon in sight of the actor. IF an actor accepts a weapon without doing this check then they are considered criminally negligent for any harm done with the weapon that would have been reasonably negated by this step. If the actor uses the weapon in a way that is unsafe after this check all liability is shoulded by the actor.

Following the weapon that killed on Rust it was used with live ammunition to shoot cans and abandoned on a cart. This makes the props person negligent by film safety practice. It was picked up by the 1st Assistant Director whom was not entitled to handle the weapon AT ALL which transfers some criminal negligence to him. The 1st AD handed the weapon to Baldwin and claimed it was a safe weapon WITHOUT performing the check. Anyone who saw this trade off on the set should have set off general alarm. But they didn't. This could have had to do with power imbalances on set. You generally do not tell a Producer that they are doing something wrong unless you are either willing to trust the producer to be reasonable or baring that, are willing to lose your job. Wrongful termination suits are nigh nonexistent in film because chasing one might blacklist you from other productions.

The 1st AD is the main safety officer on set and Baldwin as an experienced actor would have been briefed on weapon safety protocols many times before. Having the 1st AD just hand you a weapon on set EVEN one that is an inert rubber replica would be an instant firing offence for the AD. Accepting the weapon without insisting on a check leaves the liability on the actor. They might have a lesser share depending on how experienced they might be. If they were ignorant of the protocol at the time then the production team would take that share liability for not properly enforcing safety on the set.

Baldwin as a producer in the days leading up to the accident had shown signs of being negligent in other areas of production safety and the people hired into positions that were to enforce safety on set. People left the production citing the unsafe conditions in protest. He may not shoulder the full liability of criminal negligence but he ABSOLUTELY owns a chunk of it. Directors and Producers REGULARLY push the boundaries of crew safety when they think they can get away with it and the bigger the name the more likely these accidents are. Remembering WHY we have these safety protocols and the people injured or killed in the past is something that is well known in the industry. We remember those killed or permanently maimed by production negligence because there but for the grace of God go us. Everyone who has been in this industry more than a decade personally knows someone whose life was permanently impacted by a bigshot throwing their weight around because of the natural power imbalances on set. One of my Co-workers sustained a permanently debilitating brain injury last year for just this reason. You dice with some one else's death you gotta pay up when you lose.

Baldwin didn't "show up to do a job." He was a producer on the film, not just an actor.