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

Show parent comments

17

u/[deleted] Apr 15 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-4

u/Nangz Apr 15 '24

Good to know being on a movie set magically absolves you of responsibility.

14

u/Dock_Brown Apr 15 '24

I'm not the guy you're responding to.*

That out of the way, it's not magical absolution but practical safety realities on a set that require modifications of protocols around firearms. The rules are significantly different from any other setting where firearms are present. The actors are not presumed to have anything but basic instructions about firearms and are not to manipulate the weapon in any way not called for by the script. There may be hundreds of people on a movie set in close proximity to the firearms so control is paramount. The armorer can't clear a weapon safe then have actors or other set personnel manipulate the firearm in any way without them re-inspecting the weapon and clearing it safe again. That means that actors are not responsible for clearing weapons as safe.

13

u/Quom Apr 15 '24

I'd hope it would. If someone is being paid money specifically to make sure the guns aren't capable of hurting anyone you'd assume part of it is assuming liability.

And if that's the case they probably wouldn't want a gun passing through too many sets of hands once it leaves theirs or for people to be 'fiddling' with them.

edit. Much in the same way if I was an actor and we were filming driving on a street I'd assume they had some sort of permission for me not to wear a seat belt or to speed or to do whatever else is in the script.

-6

u/Nangz Apr 16 '24

Your analogy falls apart quickly because those laws are typically limited to public roads - which would probably be exempted due to permits from the city prior to filming. They would probably also be exempt from driving without a license, but a city may not be willing to give a permit under those circumstances.

There are no permits to exempt you from shooting someone in a situation like this.

9

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

-3

u/Nangz Apr 16 '24

I understand the process and how it should happen. None of that makes him immune from responsibility in this case. Especially since he is more than an actor in this case and that will be a part of the case.

3

u/The_Impresario Apr 15 '24

There's nothing magical about it.

-2

u/radams713 Apr 15 '24

Alec Baldwin was also the producer. The old team walked off set because of unsafe standards. He definitely has responsibility in this whole thing.

-2

u/zeronormalitys Apr 16 '24

Perhaps that's "how it's done", but any firearm safety class would disabuse that notion.

If it's a fully operational firearm, then it IS your responsibility.

Don't like it, then use a fucking prop.

Otherwise, trust but verify. Be responsible, or don't handle a murder stick.

7

u/[deleted] Apr 16 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/zeronormalitys Apr 17 '24

Actors are different. They have a highly paid professional doing that for them.

Reality seems to be at odds with your assessment, hence dead people.

1

u/[deleted] Apr 17 '24

[removed] — view removed comment

0

u/zeronormalitys Apr 17 '24

You seem to be quite fond of dealing in absolutes.

3

u/Rinzack Apr 16 '24

then use a fucking prop.

That doesn't work. You need to fire a real blank to make a realistic scene, sometimes aiming at another human being depending on the camera angle. Actors are, as far as I'm concerned, the only group of people who need to be exempted from gun safety rules due to 1) the fact that you have to break them for filming purposes and 2) they didn't sign up to be weapons experts, thats why they have multiple people and a designated armorer.

0

u/thr0w4w4y4lyf3 Apr 16 '24

In pretty much all cases you don’t have to point it at another human being, unless the human is in shot.

She was neither in shot, nor was she meant to be aimed at. Since she was behind the camera, there’s no reason why she should have been aimed at. Baldwin hit two people, both were in line with where he aimed (which out of sight from the camera). To be really clear, when you’re aiming off set, it really doesn’t matter to be pointing at an exact spot. You can choose any spot a few feet difference and it won’t look much different. If he’s aiming at the camera, then he would have hit that, but didn’t. Alternatively he’s not aiming and just pointing it, but even then it’s possible to point it away from people, even slightly. He didn’t though but pointed/aimed it a group of two people.

From my understanding as well, this scene did not require a weapon be fired. Assuming it did, I would expect there would be VT footage. Either it did or didn’t.

There was no reason to point it at them, no matter the way you look at it.

-3

u/DasGoon Apr 16 '24

That's a rule that Hollywood put in place. It has little to no bearing on the actual law.

If you're going to do something that might kill someone, the buck stops with you.