Unless the judge has some knowledge that Baldwin either had intent, or was negligent in such a way as to contribute to the death,

Trials are the thing we do that allow juries/judges to come to those conclusions.

He was the employer and he fostered the conditions that led to a death. Something we truly need to penalize.

The purpose is to prosecute him for the crime he has been charged with. That charge is Involuntary manslaughter, which explicitly means he was negligent in a way that lead to the death of another person. The purpose of having him(or literally anyone) stand trial in the American justice system is (supposed) to examine the evidence and determine if it supports the charges against the (presumed innocent) defendant. You don’t get let off the hook for your mistakes just because you ‘feel absolutely terrible’ about it. Your understanding of fault in this situation is incorrect.

It won't be intent. The article says that it's involuntary manslaughter at issue. Probably negligence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter#Involuntary

Involuntary manslaughter is the killing of a human being without intent of doing so, either expressed or implied. It is distinguished from voluntary manslaughter by the absence of intention. It is normally divided into two categories, constructive manslaughter and criminally negligent manslaughter.

Criminally negligent manslaughter is variously referred to as criminally negligent homicide in the United States, and gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales. In Scotland and some Commonwealth of Nations jurisdictions the offence of culpable homicide might apply.

It occurs where death results from serious negligence, or, in some jurisdictions, serious recklessness. A high degree of negligence is required to warrant criminal liability. A related concept is that of willful blindness, which is where a defendant intentionally puts themselves in a position where they will be unaware of facts which would render them liable.

Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death. The existence of the duty is essential because the law does not impose criminal liability for a failure to act unless a specific duty is owed to the victim. It is most common in the case of professionals who are grossly negligent in the course of their employment. An example is where a doctor fails to notice a patient's oxygen supply has disconnected and the patient dies (R v Adomako and R v Perreau). Another example could be leaving a child locked in a car on a hot day.

true, most of the blame goes to dumbass negligent idiot who didnt care to do her armourer job and check for live ammo at any point (and probably brought that shit to the set)

and now its about if baldwins trigger pull and bad management is sentence worthy

He was negligent but not in his position as the actor holding the weapon. My understanding is he is partly responsible for deciding to choose a non-union safety team that lead to the death.

It was ultimately his responsibility because it was his production. It was not his fault for pulling the trigger, it was the unsafe working conditions on set.

If any of us died at work due to unsafe working conditions then our families would definitely want the employer held responsible to the full extent of the law. Baldwin may be a famous actor but in this situation he was an employer too, not just an actor.

I mean, it will end eventually. The first trial is over and I think this is the only other person being tried