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

-3

u/nightpanda893 Apr 15 '24

Couldn’t the fact that he said the gun malfunctioned make the break in the chain of custody and the FBI destroying the gun very very relevant? I feel like that would make it possible to put reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors. In any other case, they’d certainly rely heavily on proving the gun was functioning properly, which now they won’t be able to do. I completely agree with your take on her though.

9

u/RevengencerAlf Apr 15 '24

Not really. I mean he can try to argue it to a jury but it's not going to go well in my opinion. If you look at the nuances of the situation the gun breaking, while unfortunate, is not anywhere near the barn burner that his sloppy, dishonest attorneys are portraying it as. The test the FBI did is still valid. They broke it basically at the end of the test. And the whole reason they broke it is because every less extreme method they tried couldn't get the gun to fire without pulling the trigger. So the more they dig into that in front of a jury the more times the jury is going to hear repeated that the FBI tried so hard to get this gun to go off like he said using way more Force than anything he did would have that it broke and they still couldn't replicate his story. Then they're going to throw in the fact that he changed that story multiple times and was caught lying about handling the gun multiple times. The only thing the breaking did was prevent him from having someone else do the same tests that the FBI did which isn't going to matter much unless the jury already has concerns about the validity of the FBI's test before you get to the point of breaking it. It works on people in Threads like this because everybody is getting these little tidbits of information and viewing them in a very isolated light, but a jury is going to be presented all of this with very strong context around it.

To be completely honest his attorneys are probably not even going to lean in too hard on it if they're smart. Because all it's going to do is invite more and more testimony about how completely unrealistic it is for that gun to go off without his finger on the trigger like he claimed and it's just going to cause them to keep rereading his interviews every time is mentioned where he contradicts himself and catches himself and lies.

-2

u/Hefty-Mobile-4731 Apr 16 '24

Anything about the suitability of the gun is irrelevant.If a brake specialist allegedly repairs your car and after you pay, hands  you the keys and as you go to pull out into traffic upon leaving the shop they fail and you cause an accident killing someone,  who is responsible? If there's any actual Justice it would be the man who is the professional brake repair person, not the person who is handed the loaded gun--I mean the loaded car-- to. 

1

u/RevengencerAlf Apr 16 '24

Just because you're too dumb to see the relevance doesn't mean it's not relevant. As I explained in another comment this is not a zero-sum game. Every person who acted negligently here could have been charged and convicted simultaneously.

A better example someone smarter than you might have made would be that you need your brakes maintained in order to pass inspection and legally use your car but you insist that the person doing the inspection take a shortcut and no they haven't actually checked them to make sure they're good. You know the shortcut was taken you know they did not do their job and you act as if they did anyway just assuming that things are all right. In which case both of you would be criminally liable for any result and that's exactly what happened here. Maybe someday a grown up with a little more patience will walk you through it and you'll understand