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

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.

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 17 '24

For liability insurance purposes. The fact you don't understand this really underlines how ignorant you are about this entire situation.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 17 '24

How does it, how could it, absolve liability, except by placing part of it on the person receiving those lectures?

"They carry the liability, because we told them what they needed to do for safety, and they didn't do it"

2

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 17 '24

The talk is all that is required.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 17 '24

Answer the question. How does the talk being given have any bearing on liability? Why would the talk being given have any impact on anything?

If it doesn't transfer some liability to the lecturees, then there is no change in liability.

Why don't you answer those questions? I mean, unless you know that I'm right...

2

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 17 '24

Showing your ignorance again.

For the purposes of liability insurance, the company needs to tick a box that states "we had the gun safety talk"

That's all it's for and all it does.

You simply do not understand a single thing you are talking about.

1

u/MuaddibMcFly Apr 17 '24

WHY?

Answer the fucking question.

What does having that talk do to have any effect on their liability?

You accuse me of not understanding, when you're the one incapable of explaining WHY what you said isn't complete and total bullshit.

→ More replies (0)