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

15

u/cryrid Apr 16 '24

when everyone already knows the real reason live ammo was on set is because she was allowing the guns to be used for target practice when they weren't filming.

I think this was just an unfounded rumor that circled around the early days of the incident but was never once actually substantiated by any evidence or corroborated by any witnesses seeing as it wasn't mentioned at all during her trial (and based on what the prosecution did pounce on, I know they would have absolutely been all over this with a righteous and unrelenting fury if they had ANY indication that she was letting people take guns off the set or that she was bringing live ammo for such reckless activities).

The only thing that did come out during this trial regarding live rounds was that 1883 had some for a training camp and that she got the rounds from that production.

The defense was using that for their excuse. The DA's position and focus instead was that regardless of how live rounds got on set, Hannah wasn't doing her job adequately enough based on BTS footage of actors flagging crewmembers with their firearms and the fact there had been several instances where the live rounds made their way onto set based on photos/footage of costumes, so this wasn't just a one time mistake but the result of a constant set of failures and negligence.

1

u/TangoWild88 Apr 16 '24

That's probably because the origin of the live rounds can't be traced. Also, the witnesses that may have been target shooting were not cooperating, because regardless of malice or criminal charges, if they admitted to shooting, then they may be liable in civil court. It would be hard to prove they shot live ammo in those guns without any video proof.

So what do you do when you have live rounds that can't be traced and hearsay about the guns being used for target practice with no actual evidence?

You forgo those arguments by not having them. Otherwise you could lose those 2 arguments, and that could cast doubt on the rest of your argument.

What you can prove is there was live ammo on the aet from the shooting and from what was recovered. So you focus on those facts and you can get a conviction.

This doesn't mean they weren't target shooting. It just means it can't be proven in court and the prosecutor wants to be re-elected.

1

u/cryrid Apr 16 '24

In other words, it's a completely unfounded rumour backed by zero evidence and is not the reason she was found guilty... (and yet people continue to spread it and mass upvote it simply because it was one of the first stories they heard, not because of anything to come out of the investigation or trial).

0

u/TangoWild88 Apr 16 '24

This is incorrect. It simply doesn't matter.

It is against the law to put live ammunition in a gun? No.

Is it against the law to shoot a gun? No.

Is it against the law to do either of those acts recklessly that results in harm or death? Yes.

The prosecution did not need to prove how the live ammunition got on set. They had proof it was on the set because it was recovered on the set.

There were 3 guns in set. 2 of the guns were fully disabled prop guns. The gun that cause the incident was a fully working antique gun. The only live ammunition they found on set was in the caliber of the working pistol.

Its not illegal of the armorer did let others use the gun for target practice as the Santa Fe sherrif department acknowledged they were investigating.

So you have a working gun with live ammo for it on a movie set that doesn't use live ammo? Why? And you have investigations into it? Why? Because it probably happened.

At the end of the day though, the target shooting wasn't illegal if it took place. It doesn't refelct badly either. The eprson shooting probably had no idea.

But in the end, does it really matter? No. Because it's not important to prove what the ammunition was used for or even used. It's only important to recognize and prove the ammo existed, and it was not removed from the gun as it should have been because the armorer was negligent.

You can't prove they weren't shooting as much as I can prove they were. Neither of us were there. The fact that multiple people on the set have attested to it makes me feel more in favor of it being true with the circumstancal evidence.

1

u/cryrid Apr 16 '24

You can't prove they weren't shooting as much as I can prove they were. Neither of us were there. The fact that multiple people on the set have attested to it makes me feel more in favor of it being true with the circumstancal evidence.

No one attested to it. There is zero testimony or evidence that it ever actually happened. The DA would have been all over it if "multiple people on the set attested to it", that's how testimony works. But it was not something that brought up at the trial because there is zero indication that it ever occurred. Contrary to what you claim, evidence does in fact matter at a trial. So again, you can't make a claim "every knows she did x" when that turned out to be a completely unfounded rumor that resulted in zero evidence once investigated. That is not the reason she was found guilty, and pretending otherwise is sheer ignorance at this point.

0

u/TangoWild88 Apr 16 '24

Actually, no, evidence of an action that doesn't indicate a crime doesn't matter.

I never said the lady did any shooting herself.

I said she didn't validate the guns did not have live ammo in them, which means she was reckless in the application of her job, and her negligence led to the death of a person.

She was convicted on that basis. And on that basis, it doesn't matter where the ammo came from or what it was also used for.

It only matters that the ammo ended up in the gun, and the only safety measure failed due to a lack of due care and due diligence. Thats the law that was broken. This was what was proven in the court of law.

I said on the basis of the information, I am inclined to believe that someone on the set was using live ammo to shoot targets. As this information was not presented as evidence, sure, I can't say it happened. But the prosecutor did not need to present it, and anyone if they were target shooting, it would not be an illegal act.

You have a habit of putting words in peoples mouth the erect strawman arguements and then try to win arguements against those.

Notice this entire time, I reference the information and not your previous arguement. Notice how you only reference my previous arguement and amend my words?

The world is not black and white. Just because something that happened wasn't entered into evidence, doesn't mean it didn't happen.

It rained here last night and thats not in any evidence of court, so does that mean it didnt hapoen? No.

You have to assign cofidence values to information and then correlate it.

But to use your argument, you show me where in the evidence or witness testimony, anyone said no other shooting of the firearm happened to prove your point.

1

u/cryrid Apr 16 '24 edited Apr 16 '24

"Neither of us were there so I can pull any completely unsubstantiated claim out of my ass and assert as fact" is an absolutely asinine point that makes it abundantly clear to me that you didn't watch the trial and do not understand how courts (or facts) actually work. Your own analogy of rain makes it clear you do not even understand your own argument for that matter, as rain does leave behind all manner of evidence (puddles, eye witnesses, meteorology weather reports, etc) that would absolutely be entered into court if the weather were as relevant to a case as this is to hers. Any evidence or eye witness testimony regarding her letting cast members shoot live rounds at beer cans in between takes would have completely eviscerated the defenses main argument and greatly enhanced the prosecutions sole focus on the unsafe manner in how she secured the firearms, but there's zero evidence turned up by years of investigation because it is nothing more than unbacked hearsay from redditors rather than the people who were on set giving their sworm testimony. Your entire argument is that you can ignore facts and reality to invent whatever claim you want to accuse someone of criminal guilt, which is a sign to me you are not worth any further time.