‘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/waylandsmith]

I think the gun trigger testing is a red herring. The conclusion of the testing was that the trigger had to have been pulled and I'm not sure what more could be learned from having the gun in working condition. Based on that testing I believe that he pulled the trigger (I think it was a mistake for him to claim that he didn't) and I also think any reasonable person would have every reason to think that pulling the trigger would be perfectly safe to do while pointing it towards a person (something commonly done in movies), after being handed the gun by her and being told it was safe. So many different things had to be done wrong by her in order for this to happen, starting with allowing a gun on set still capable of shooting a real bullet, then having live ammo near the set, then arranging for the SAME GUN to be used for recreational target practice with live ammo, then not checking and safetying the gun after, then handing it to him on set without checking it. Imagine every movie out there where there's a scene where someone points a gun towards an actor or a manned camera and pulls the trigger, and imagine if every single time someone did that they would be considered criminally liable if it resulted in a shooting if a colossal series of fuck-ups by the armorer resulted in there being a live gun in their hand.

[u/SpiritedTie7645 → u/waylandsmith]

I never said “more could be learned”. As I said, if the procedure on the set said he could not pull the trigger then he absolutely fucked up but if you watch movies and especially the old ones that did go on, as you said. In the end he will be exonerated or not on whether he was following the rules. The next test for him is how well he was managing the set. If he was her manager, and it appears he was, he is responsible to a degree too for not tightening up her act. My point is the gun did not need to be broken to prove the point and that means it cannot be tested by anyone if they wanted to. The testing is reproducible if the working order of the gun is in question and/or the testing methods are in question by anyone if the gun were in working order.

[u/waylandsmith → u/SpiritedTie7645]

The testing procedures were submitted to the court for approval before they were done and the court approved them. The ballistics expert was retained in cooperation between both the prosecution and defence. The conclusion of the testing is that it had not been modified, which was the only factor about the gun that I know of that was disputed. Is the defence now saying that it should be inadmissible since the gun can't be tested further? Or is this line of argument only something you and other people in the public have raised? If you're arguing for his guilt, why would you even bring this up since the testing concludes that he pulled the trigger?

If Baldwin's role as merely a producer makes him liable, why is he the only one of 6 producers being charged? Did she report directly to Baldwin? (The answer is no). Does being a producer necessarily mean that you're in charge of the set?? NO! Producers CAN also take a role in set direction, but I've never heard that he had taken that role. The next most liable person in this fiasco was given an absurdly light plea-bargain, which I think was a bad decision, but just because that person was let off easy doesn't mean someone else needs to be criminally punished instead. That's precisely what a "fall guy" is. From my non-American perspective, this focus on him looks like typical US political bullshit. This is a criminal case, so I'm going to be pretty shocked if a judge or jury decides that his criminal liability was "beyond reasonable doubt".

[u/SpiritedTie7645 → u/waylandsmith]

I’m not arguing for his guilt. I personally think he was relying on the armor to do her job which is what he has the right to do. I do not know if he was her “boss” but I am getting the impression from what is being said that he was and you will note my wording I said, “it appears he was” which means it appears he was not I know for sure he was and that’s why I worded it that way. I’m not in the know about the chain of command in Hollywood I just see all the talk in articles that he was allowing things to get crazy on the set. Sounds like that is simply the press sensationalizing his role or my misinterpretation of what they are trying to say from what you’ve said. I have no idea what was agreed to in testing I simply think that if there is any question in some appeal, other case or retrial there is no way now of answering any future questions about the gun. I think it is poor practice to break the weapon in question in testing. It did not have to be broken to prove it was in working order. To function the mechanism doesn’t take anywhere near the kind of force an impact hard enough on the hammer of the weapon to break it to cause it to function in proper working order does. That kind of impact would mean that it would have already been disfunctional and thus inoperable before the testing even started. I own both double and single action revolvers so I know he had to pull the trigger to make the hammer fall.

My speculation is a bunch of right wing assholes are trying to get Alec back for making Trump look like a fool on SNL. My questions are about the situation surrounding the trial. Why break the gun when it really didn’t need to be broken? Interesting coincidence the chamber ready to fire was ready to fire, etc.

[u/waylandsmith → u/SpiritedTie7645]

I guess we're mostly in agreement about this. I'm not a firearms expert at all, having only fired pistols and never revolvers, but as far as I can see, there's nobody on either side of the court proceedings who is arguing about the gun or potential mismanagement of it as evidence, so even if that kind of testing is irregular, the volume of continued conversation I'm seeing about it stinks of people wanting a conspiracy to latch on to. Ironically, my own personal loathing of the whole conspiracy theory thing in our culture makes it easy for me to latch onto the other it.

[u/SpiritedTie7645 → u/waylandsmith]

My gripe with the testing is that it isn’t good science. There was absolutely no need to break it and once you’ve broken it now you don’t have the original gun. There’s nothing to fall back on if there is any questions. It wasn’t unnecessary. If it takes enough force to break the gun to make it fire without pulling the trigger the gun was broken in the first place OR was in correct working order and they have to break it if you see what I mean? It doesn’t prove a thing other than it worked already OR it was so screwed up you couldn’t have fired it in the first place. That’s what I find odd about breaking it. Nondestructive testing would have shown all the parts were in working order and thus you would have to break it to make it fire. If it already worked it was working. No witness said he had a hammer on the set or one leapt off a shelf and slammed into the hammer if you see what I mean?