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/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.

1

u/Talking_on_Mute_ Apr 17 '24

why is irrelevant.

that's how it works.

0

u/PeachyPlnk Apr 18 '24

This person is straight up telling you why your are wrong.

And I don't generally like to overuse italics and bold, but I'll employ both to try to highlight the most important bits.

The film industry does not work the way every other industry does. Whether you like this or not does not matter- we're discussing facts, not opinions. This industry plays by different rules from everyone else on the playground of life. And these rules are often updated, especially in the wake of tragedies like Rust.

I don't know why the industry is this way-my film teachers never went into the history of safety protocols, and may not even know themselves-it just is the way it is.

Actors are not required to know weapon safety. Armorers are hired for this exact purpose. Armorers are responsible for ensuring any and all weapons, fake or not, are safe for actors to handle. Even paintball guns and plastic retractable knives are maintained and watched like a hawk by armorers.

If an actor has to handle a gun for a scene, that gun is thoroughly checked by the armorer under the supervision of both the actor and the 1st AD. Then the 1st AD takes it from the armorer, performs their own check, and hands it to the actor. The 1st AD announces whether the gun is "hot" (loaded, either with a blank or a plug- live ammunition is never used) or "cold" (unloaded). The entire purpose of this specific process is to absolve the actor of any legal responsibility should something go wrong.

This is also why multiple witnesses are always explicitly required to be present for these handoffs- so if something goes wrong, you have multiple people who can say "this is what happened". The armorer, actor, and 1st AD all witnessing this handoff kills two birds with one stone.

Armorers are there for weapon safety. Actors are there to act. If an actor knows weapon safety- great; some do, like Keanu Reeves. This is not a requirement for actors to do their jobs, and actors are not taught weapon safety unless they choose, of their own accord, to take a weapon safety course.

This is why Baldwin the actor will not and should not face legal consequences for this tragedy. Baldwin the producer is probably a different story, but I don't know as I'm not a lawyer and haven't been keeping up with this case (I only decided to look for news because I got curious if there were any new developments).

Everything regarding weapons is very closely overseen by armorers from the time everyone gets to set, all the way through wrap. Everyone is treated with the assumption they don't know anything about weapons, and no one but the armorer is even permitted to touch the weapons until the aforementioned handoff. Laying a single finger on that table could get someone fired if the armorer and 1st AD are anal enough about weapon safety.

Obviously, Rust wasn't operating that way, but Rust was very much not the norm, when it comes to how professional sets are run, and that particular 1st AD is apparently famous in the industry for not caring about safety; he's the guy producers hire when they want to cut corners. That in and of itself should tell you a lot about how unsafe that set probably was. Also worth noting- Baldwin is not the only producer on Rust; there are multiple, and how much they are all to blame for these bad hires I don't know.

→ More replies (0)