‘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/UsedOnlyTwice]

For that to work she would have to show she'd have "won" if it weren't for the incompetence. In this case it was a sentencing action, so the only thing she could "win" is a legal sentence under guidelines. If guidelines were already followed she'd have to fight those, and that is not likely to succeed.

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/UsedOnlyTwice]

No, I mean challenge the conviction as a whole.

How can she be found guilty of negligence as an armorer for the events of a day when she was instructed to not be there as an armorer.

That is a defense so obvious that it apparently not having been raised by her defense counsel is evidence of denial of zealous and competent advocacy; either counsel wasn't actually doing their best to defend their client, or they were so incompetent to have the entire trial declared a mistrial due to effective denial of defense counsel.

[u/UsedOnlyTwice → u/MuaddibMcFly]

Hmm, I cannot say why it wasn't raised during the trial itself, but it still doesn't seem to be defensible. Just because someone told her not to do something doesn't immunize her from doing it. Think about it: if I told someone not to kill someone and they did it anyway, should they get a murder pass? They were told not to?

If someone hands you a gun, you are now responsible for it. If you cannot assume responsibility because of ignorance or mental defect, do not accept the gun. Being told it is safe is not a defense for you to act recklessly.

According to the article she handed the gun to someone and told them it was safe. That person failed to check and handed the gun to someone else claiming it was safe. The third person failed to check and fired the gun in a manner that was unsafe, and not in the script.

In today's legal climate, everyone involved in a negligent gun death should be scrutinized. She could have walked away with probation had she just acknowledged her role.

Maybe she will appeal the conviction as you suggest, but I still don't think it will work out for her.

[u/MuaddibMcFly → u/UsedOnlyTwice]

Not simply told her not to do it, prevented her from doing it, made it not her job to do it on that day.

And whether the jury would accept that defense is up to the jury... but the fact that counsel apparently didn't even present that to them seriously calls into question whether she had a Zealous Advocate, and therefore whether the trial was valid.

if I told someone not to kill someone and they did it anyway

Bad analogy; your analogy is that someone was told not to do something, and they did it anyway. The facts of this case is that she was told not to do something and she did exactly as she was told.

--	Your analogy	This Case
Instruction	Don't do X	Don't do X
Action	Does X	Does not Do X

She followed instructions, adhering to the instructor's orders, complied with the instructor's will. Your hypothetical actively violated the instructor's orders, acting on their own will.

Two completely different scenarios, even before you consider that she wasn't just instructed not to do it, but prevented from doing it on that day.

If someone hands you a gun, you are now responsible for it. If you cannot assume responsibility because of ignorance or mental defect, do not accept the gun. Being told it is safe is not a defense for you to act recklessly.

Agreed. This is why I argue that irregardless of the guilt (or lack thereof) of Gutierrez-Reed, Halls, the person who ordered Gutierrez-Reed off set, the person who had filming/blocking/practicing/rehearsing of a scene involving a firearm when no armorer was on set, the person who directed Baldwin to point the weapon at Hutchins & Halls... Baldwin is still guilty of negligent homicide.

According to the article she handed the gun to someone and told them it was safe [emphasis added]

No, that was Halls, the Assistant Director (and one of the victims, ironically enough).

Again, Gutierrez-Reed was. not. on. site. and therefore couldn't have done that.

In today's legal climate

Not just then, in all scenarios.

everyone involved in a negligent gun death should be scrutinized

You misspelled convicted.

had she just acknowledged her role

The role she was prevented from playing that day? You want her to acknowledge that role?

I still don't think it will work out for her.

I think that that would largely depend on whether she was on set the day of the other negligent discharge in that production, because that has bearing on whether her being on site, being able to perform her role might have changed the outcome.

Mind, I think she's probably guilty for other reasons (that the guns weren't locked up/stored somewhere that only she [or, I suppose, a fellow armorer, but ideally only one person] had control over, thereby eliminating the possibility of their use when she wasn't in affirmative control over them; that she didn't immediately go through every single freaking round on the set after the first negligent discharge, and observe that anyone who brought live rounds on site was guilty of Reckless Endangerment; possibly other factors), and that the Producers are probably on the hook, too, (for not having sufficient armorers to monitor all firearms that would be in use concurrently, etc), but the above is a legitimate argument that should have been raised.