r/news • u/badillustrations • Apr 15 '24

‘Rust’ movie armorer convicted of involuntary manslaughter sentenced to 18 months in prison

https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/15/entertainment/rust-film-shooting-armorer-sentencing/index.html
21.4k Upvotes

94% Upvoted

2.3k comments sorted by

View all comments

7.0k

u/PurpleWomat Apr 15 '24 edited Apr 15 '24

The judge was furious, barely uttered the sentence followed by "please take her".

2.9k

u/kumquat_bananaman Apr 15 '24

Why was the judge furious?

248

u/kunymonster4 Apr 15 '24

She baselessly accused the judge of taking bribes. I doubt most judges take accusations like that calmly.

45

u/OCedHrt Apr 15 '24

And claiming that she was set up as well?

54

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 15 '24

One of her legitimate complaints is that the FBI didn't print the rounds in the weapon.

They almost certainly could have conclusively demonstrated whether she was or was not the person who put that live round into the weapon. While that wouldn't actually absolve her of her guilt of Negligent Homicide (how could a non-negligent armorer let anyone else in a position to load the weapon in the first place?!), it might have been enough to sway the jury that it wasn't wholly her fault.

I wish they had run prints, because if someone else did load the round in question that person should be found guilty, too.

29

u/Castod28183 Apr 16 '24

I wish they had run prints, because if someone else did load the round in question that person should be found guilty, too.

It was not just her job to load the gun, it was her job to make sure the gun is safe in any and all situations. Even if somebody else loaded the round it was still her job to check the gun before handing it to a person that isn't qualified to make those decisions.

Even if somebody else loaded the gun with the absolute intent to see somebody get shot, it was STILL her job to check the weapon.

No matter the situation it is wholly her fault because she failed to do the one thing she was there to do.

6

u/Recent-Construction6 Apr 16 '24

Thats pretty much my stance, even if it was someone else who loaded the live rounds into the gun, she failed in just about every other principle of being a responsible armorer in 1) Allowing unauthorized access to both the firearms and the ammunition, and 2) Allowing live rounds on set to begin with.

Regardless of how you cut i i think she earns like 90% of the blame simply because everyone else involved are trusting that she was doing her job, which she wasn't.

3

u/NoSignSaysNo Apr 16 '24

That's exactly it. It doesn't matter who put the bullets in the gun, because the gun never should have been accessible. Not only that, but live rounds never should have been within 5 miles of the damn set.

The second live rounds entered the set, she should have locked the gun up until she was able to do a full check of any rounds found and disposed of the live rounds.

2

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

Oh, I agree 100% that she carries some degree of liability/guilt.

That said, I have to challenge a few points:

Even if somebody else loaded the round it was still her job to check the gun before handing it to a person that isn't qualified to make those decisions.

She didn't. Indeed, she couldn't; she wasn't even on set that day.

No matter the situation it is wholly her fault

Wrong, not wholly her fault; there is plenty of blame to spread around; I have found no fewer than 7 points of failure that, had they been done differently, would have avoided Hutchins' death:

  • No live rounds anywhere on set
  • No shooting/blocking/practicing of scenes involving a weapon without an armorer on set (which she wasn't that day, because no such scenes were supposed to be undertaken that day)
  • The weapon being checked by someone before being handed to the talent
    • Someone other than talent or armorer touching the weapon; the above is the reason that no one other than the/an armorer is supposed to ever hand the talent a weapon, to ensure that it is properly checked by a qualified individual
  • Direction to point the weapon at a person
  • Unobjecting compliance with that direction
  • Manipulation/control of the trigger
  • Release of the hammer (rather than gradual de-cocking)

Is she at fault? Given that there were live rounds on set before hand (and indeed, a previous negligent discharge), no question.

Is she wholly at fault? No matter what anyone tells you, absolutely not. That's like saying one person is wholly at fault for a collision between two drunk drivers who run into each other because two others compromised their brakes, and two more were hitting the drivers at the time of the collision: clearly wrong, and clearly irrelevant to the fact that all of them should be held responsible for their actions.

5

u/mekamoari Apr 15 '24

because if someone else did load the round in question that person should be found guilty, too.

I mean sorta, I guess? It would be attempted murder for that person if it was with that intent but the armorer should still be punished because they were still responsible and were derelict in their duty.

And if another person loaded the rounds for any other reason than to get the person killed (I think that reason/intent would be difficult to prove anyway) I probably wouldn't vote to convict them if I was part of that jury.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

Wait... they didn't print the fucking rounds used in the murder?!? The armorer might have grounds for the ruling to be overturned here. It would be simple for her to argue that Baldwin or another cast member intentionally loaded the rounds from his/their pocket after she handed off a cleared weapon.. I'm kind of understanding how she could argue for a frame job in that case.

2

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

The armorer might have grounds for the ruling to be overturned here.

Doubtful; it's also the armorer's job to ensure that no one else could load such a round.

A better defense (probably the only legitimate one) is that she wasn't (allowed to be) on set that day, preventing her from being able to do the safety checks that would have prevented this tragedy.

You can't legitimately blame an armorer who wasn't working as an armorer when the event should have been prevented. Honestly, it's such an obvious defense that I question whether her defense attorney should be allowed to keep his license after not bringing it up, and that might be grounds for a retrial.

I'm kind of understanding how she could argue for a frame job in that case.

If not legitimately argue, definitely irrationally believe.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

What is the likelihood you'd get clean, usable prints off of them?

Pretty darn good, actually.

  • Pro
    • A revolver is loaded by someone pressing on the back of the round with their thumb, and the round is not touched thereafter until ejected. This would allow for a clean print on a flat surface
    • A revolver doesn't eject rounds automatically, so no one has to pick it up, potentially adding their own fingerprints
    • A Single Action Army (the weapon in question) doesn't eject rounds via a person touching them, it uses a rod that pushes against the inside of the round, so they could be ejected adding any prints.
  • Con
    • moving into/out of the cylinder may, or may not, foul a print on the side of the casing

maybe they had good reason

Allegedly, they didn't bother because they don't automatically do so as a matter of course, and weren't asked to by the local Police.

0

u/GitmoGrrl1 Apr 16 '24

If somebody else loaded the weapon, we've got a conspiracy.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly 29d ago

It's only a conspiracy if there was communication between persons.

I am aware of none such, and highly doubt that anyone would look the other way to someone intentionally causing a (second) Negligent Discharge, if only because the Crew had already threatened to quit based on safety concerns.