Alec Baldwin Shooting

[slartibartfast]

This. Exactly this.

The producer is effectively the CEO of a movie. Ultimate responsibility rests there. It's not him pulling the trigger that is the problem.

The trouble, for you and for society, is that no one actually believes this - you certainly don't.  You probably don't believe, for example, that the ceos of some company are legally responsible for the use of their products even when they aggressively market that use specifically.  Say.... in the case of shooting a man with a product marketed explicitly to the fantasy of shooting a man - which isn't what alec baldwin did but certainly does accurately describe most (purportedly) accidental shootings.

For what it's worth, neither do I at the end of the day.  Somebody want to hold the ceo of winchester accountable for gun death, I say pound sand - so do you, so does society, and so too will this be incorporated in his defense...if he even needs one, which I'm guessing he won't (at least not criminally. though it'll be part of his civil case too, when minimizing the risk of financial damages).

Ahhh... the responsibility of leadership is complicated. I used to own a business that employed about 30 staff. As owner of the business it certainly was my responsibility to demonstrably employ skilled people for roles that involved risk, ensure that safety protocols and procedures were in place, and people had adequate training.

I would say Baldwin will certainly not found culpable if he hired a skilled armorer, had industry standard safety processes and training in place, but then the armorer lied on their CV, didn't follow the safety protocols and procedures provided without his knowledge or employees didn't turn up for training day.

So it comes down to specifics. But I disagree with your statement "no one actually believes this" as it is much more nuanced that that.

A CEO being responsible for the use (or misuse) of their product is another whole level of abstraction, which comes with its own set of specifics and subtleties. For instance if I am CEO of a company that sells a potentially dangerous product which is benign when used for its intended purpose, but don't put warning labels on the packaging, then I may be liable for exactly what you suggested. You will find warnings such as "Product only to be used for its intended purpose" for example on household products which is that kind of ass-covering. AKA "What do you mean I can't inject bleach to cure COVID?" Hehe