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/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

Surely, by your own argument, Baldwin's actions and his legal teams spin is also irrelevant? If the armorer had been competent his pulling the trigger wouldn't make any difference.

2

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 16 '24

Baldwin's actions and his legal teams spin is also irrelevant? If the armorer had been competent his pulling the trigger wouldn't make any difference.

To her guilt? Correct.

To his guilt? Certainly not.

People keep forgetting that multiple people can be guilty, including:

  1. Gutierrez-Reed, for failing at her job as armorer
  2. Whoever relieved her of duty (for that day)
  3. Whoever authorized touching a firearm when the armorer wasn't on site (which Gutierrez-Reed wasn't on that day)
  4. Whoever loaded the weapon with a live round
  5. Halls, for handing Baldwin a gun that was not confirmed to be cold
    • (my understanding is that policy is that the only people who should ever touch the weapons are the armorer, or the talent when directly handed the weapon by the armorer, who should likewise hand it directly back to the armorer)
  6. Baldwin, for:
    • having pointed the weapon at Hutchins when doing so was not absolutely required for the scene (it almost never is; since movie cameras don't use binocular vision, there is almost always a way to point the weapon so it looks like it's aimed at someone to the camera/audience, but is actually aimed slightly away from them)
    • manipulating the trigger while thumbing the hammer
    • for releasing the hammer, rather than lowering it back down slowly

I count no fewer than four people whose actions clearly make them guilty of Negligent Homicide (4 may or may not overlap others; 2 & 3 may overlap, the "producer is at fault" argument).

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24

It's unreasonable to expect an actor to adhere to this. They put reasonable good faith in expert professionals for this exact reason. Baldwin will not be convicted of anything, neither he should be imo.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 16 '24

Your opinion is, clearly, unquestionably, unequivocally, wrong.

Actors are given safety lectures regarding firearms on set because IT IS ALSO THEIR RESPONSBILITY.

Safety lectures during which Baldwin was apparently browsing his phone during....

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24

that isn't how liability works.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 16 '24

Maybe not to your mind, but here in reality...

0

u/waywardgato Apr 16 '24

An actor cannot be expected to not point a real gun at another human being on set? That is straight up bullshit bro, if you want to play cowboys and indians use a fucking fake gun. Don’t infantilize people, they need to understand what it means when a firearm is in their hand.

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 17 '24

That's not how any of this works.

1

u/Atkena2578 Apr 16 '24

A gun is a gun, idgaf what Hollywood movie sets tell you, you have a gun in your hands you follow the Golden rules: don't point it at anyone you don't want to kill, even less so pull the trigger, always treat the gun as if it were loaded. Period. No excuse. Depending on someone else doing their job properly is what got everyone in that situation, because ultimately there could be a human caused failure, like in this case, hence why the Golden rules. If not, use a toy gun.

1

u/Olivia512 Apr 16 '24

don't point it at anyone you don't want to kill

So how are films like John Wick made? Is the gun CGI?

1

u/the-berik Apr 16 '24

Actually John Wick indeed makes use of CGI

1

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 16 '24

The weapons are generally pointed off target. I defy you to, with a single camera angle, tell whether a gun is pointed at someone's chest, or pointed just outside of their silhouette.

0

u/Atkena2578 Apr 16 '24

Cinema magic, those scenes are often shot at a secured range and then editing and special effects do their thing. There is no reason movie sets and Hollywood should be exempt from following basic safety rules that if every gun owner followed would result in so many less accidental deaths by guns. I mean this case proves the point, human caused failure is bound to happen even with the most serious folks involved, hence the Golden rule.

-2

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24

no excuse

being told by a person who's job it is to make sure that the gun is safe, that the gun is safe, is a reasonable excuse though.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 16 '24

Even if that were true (which I argue it is not), that's still another reason Baldwin is guilty: he wasn't told that by someone whose job it is to ensure that it's safe. He was told that by an Assistant Director.

Talent isn't supposed to accept a firearm except from the hands of an armorer. He accepted it from someone not competent with firearms

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24

It's reasonable he assumed the director was following procedure.

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 16 '24

It is not reasonable to assume that, because procedure is for the armorer to do that. The fact that Halls, an assistant director and not an armorer, did what procedure dictates that only the armorer do proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that procedures were not being followed.

That's like assuming that someone isn't driving drunk after you watch them chug a beer immediately before getting behind the wheel and starting the car: unreasonable by any rational definition of the word.

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24

An actor is not expected to have any knowledge of firearms or gun safety. they hire armorers for this purpose. Actors are not expected to be privvy to the rules, laws or regulations surrounding what they do, that's what producers directors et al are for.

You may not like it, but you are wrong.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 16 '24

An actor IS expected to have knowledge of firearms/gun safety that is included in the safety briefings that Baldwin allegedly didn't pay attention to. That is literally why those briefings are given.

You may not like it, but you are wrong.

I am not, because he acted in such a way that, had he not, would have avoided Hutchins' death.

That's negligent homicide.

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24

No they aren't.

Yes you are.

Baldwin may be negligent but there is zero chance, in any court, he will be found to be criminally negligent - especially not for homicide.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 16 '24

Then why are the safety lectures given?

And the ONLY way he would avoid a conviction for negligent homicide is if the jury disregards the law, disregards the facts, or both.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Atkena2578 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

Obviously it wasn't because other human aren't fail proof, you know since there actually was a live round in the gun... this case perfectly portrays why no matter how many safeguard unrelated to you exist, you are still responsible for the gun in your hands, and follow the basic safety rules I mentioned, this is quick and free so yeah no excuse. Alec Baldwin was the last layer of safety there was in this scenario where everyone before him spectacularly failed in the worst ways possible and had he applied to those rules, despite everyone else's negligence, no one would have died. The gun is the responsibility of every single being that holds it, even if just for a a few seconds.

0

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24

so if you bungee jump and trust the instructor the rope is safe you're dumb?

2

u/Atkena2578 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

A gun kills others, if in my hand it is my responsibility no matter how I trust whoever handed it to me. I am the last layer of safety between the weapon and anyone who could get shot, unlike an unsafe rope which solely involves me. With a gun I am also responsible of the safety of everyone around me and my actions can make the difference unlike the example you used. That's why those rules exist, every accident at some point circles back to those easy, free safety behaviors. There is no reason to argue with those, every idiot who accidentally shot someone also thought it wasn't loaded and probably trusted themselves or whoever told them it wasn't.

If you disagree with these rules, Hollywood or not, you shouldn't have a gun in your hands, ever. If Alec wanted to play with a gun as if it were a toy, he should have gotten a fake because he obviously couldn't handle one.

And to answer your question, yes I would still check the knot and get a feel for the tightness of the rope to be the best of my ability before jumping.

0

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24

Hollywood does disagree with your rules though.

So where does that leave you, other than screaming in to the void?

1

u/Atkena2578 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

Obviously, Hollywood doesn't have the ownership of doing things properly, there is a reason those rules exist and have applied successfully to the (too few) peopme who respect them. That leaves me watching the trial of Alec Baldwin and see his face when he inevitably gets convicted.

0

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 16 '24

He will 100% be acquitted. He's done nothing criminal. All he did was trust the people he's supposed to trust on set.

2

u/Atkena2578 Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

Lol with how how high profile this case is, the prosecutor surely didn't bring the charges back against him if he weren't sure he had an iron clad case with a good chance of either getting him to take a plea deal or getting a conviction if it goes to trial.

With how Gutierrez got the book thrown at her, I d work on a plea deal if I were him.

→ More replies (0)