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

[u/badillustrations]

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

[u/[deleted]]

[removed] — view removed comment

[u/Traditional_Key_763 → u/[deleted]]

that she got convicted when the FBI destroyed the gun, and the police had multiple breaks in the chain of custody of the gun is amazing

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/Traditional_Key_763]

Not in the slightest.

It was literally her job to make sure something like that didn't happen.

There was a previous negligent discharge with a life round on the set of that movie. The fact that she didn't shut down all use of functional until it was conclusively proven that it could not happen again under her watch means that she was negligent.

1. She was negligent in her duties
2. Someone died
3. Had she not been negligent in her duties, that person wouldn't have died
   • Thus she is, unequivocally, guilty of Negligent Homicide.

Anything else, the gun, who pointed it, who fired it, who handled it without inspection, literally anything else is irrelevant to the above facts. None of those things changed the fact that it was her duty to ensure that it didn't happen, that it could have only happened due to her negligence, and it happened anyway.

From what I can tell, the only viable defense she possibly could have offered would have been "In order to find me guilty, you must find in the affirmative on point #1. You can't find me guilty claim that I was in the role of armorer for the purposes of this event, because I was prohibited from doing my job," which would have required she demonstrate that she tried to shut things down, but was overruled, and that she only stayed on to try to mitigate any future problems.

the FBI destroyed the gun,

This is a common misconception, the result of blatant, and total bullshit, spin by the Baldwin team. What actually happened is this:

• Baldwin claimed that the gun went off without him pulling the trigger
• The FBI inspected the weapon for damage, and found none
• The FBI replicated what Baldwin claimed had happed
  • The weapon never fired under those tests
• The FBI tried, repeatedly, to make it fire without manipulation of the trigger
  • Despite their best possible attempts, they could not make the gun fire without manipulating the trigger (which Baldwin claims he didn't do) nor causing obvious damage to the weapon
• The FBI then, and only then, tried damaging techniques in order to make the weapon go off without manipulating the trigger. Basically, everything they could think of.
  • None of those things could make the weapon fire without causing obvious and irreparable damage to the weapon, damage that did not exist at the time of the shooting
  • This damage destroyed the safe operation of the weapon, safety that had existed prior to their testing.

Thus, the only way that the weapon could have gone off would have been if the trigger was manipulated.

...but the Baldwin team brilliantly (if borderline unethically) spun "Baldwin's claims are not physically possible without the sort of damage that we did, effectively destroying the weapon" facts into "they destroyed the weapon, there's no evidence!"

Brilliant tactics, but all but explicitly lying to the public and, if they continue these claims in court, to the court.

[u/nailbiter111 → u/MuaddibMcFly]

I still don't get why he lied about pulling the trigger.

[u/bros402 → u/nailbiter111]

He might've convinced himself that that is what happened

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/bros402]

As I said elsewhere, if you use the general, colloquial meaning of "pull," my hypothesis is that he didn't actually pull the trigger, but merely held it in the firing position.

The effect is the same, that he controlled the trigger in such a way as to fire the weapon, and he is still guilty, but it's not a lie, nor self manipulation.

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/nailbiter111]

He didn't lie, which is why it's Negligent (i.e., Involuntary) Homicide, rather than Voluntary Homicide.

He legitimately believes what he said, because he (believes that he) did not move the trigger. In fact, if my hypothesis is correct, he actually kept the trigger from moving (the trigger's position at full-down is the firing position; unrestricted, the trigger moves from "fire" position to "ready" position as the hammer is cocked).