It is though. Unless the producer knew the armorer was unqualified or potentially risky/negligent (e.g. drug use or other errors on set) then there’s no grounds to hold them liable.
If every hiring manager or corporate financier were directly culpable for their subordinates crimes/negligence — without probable cause to believe so — there would be no capitalism.
The attacks on Baldwin were specifically because he’s liberal and pro gun regulation.
So there’s a possible source of liability. Court cases are used to determine whether that’s an actual liability. So a case went to court.
The attacks on Baldwin were specifically because he’s liberal and pro gun regulation.
Quite likely, but not what I’m addressing. My point is simply that there was also a non-silly reason for why these charges were laid. If there weren’t then this wouldn’t have gone on as long as it did.
There were a dozenish producers on that movie, which ones were responsible?
Don’t know. I’m just saying it wasn’t as silly as it commonly seems.
It is though. Unless the producer knew the armorer was unqualified or potentially risky/negligent (e.g. drug use or other errors on set) then there’s no grounds to hold them liable.
If every hiring manager or corporate financier were directly culpable for their subordinates crimes/negligence — without probable cause to believe so — there would be no capitalism.
The attacks on Baldwin were specifically because he’s liberal and pro gun regulation.
So there’s a possible source of liability. Court cases are used to determine whether that’s an actual liability. So a case went to court.
Quite likely, but not what I’m addressing. My point is simply that there was also a non-silly reason for why these charges were laid. If there weren’t then this wouldn’t have gone on as long as it did.
Well if they released the org charter we could trace it from armorer to the head guy.