So, after multiple unintended discharges on the set of Rust, is the reasonable man standard going to apply to a jury?
I would argue that, no, it doesn't. A reasonable person wouldn't blindly trust the people's that screwed up twice already, because a REASONABLE MAN would realize industry protocols were obviously not being adhered to on the set.
A reasonable man would have never hired that idiot.
A reasonable man would have fired and replaced her.
A reasonable man would have never accepted a gun to use in a scene from and asst director.
But we all know Baldwin is an idiot too. He was shooting a low budget film, and sidestepped or ignored protocol. Probably because he was using his own money to finance the film, and chose the cheap way out.
So, after all his failures...
You trust him to check and clear his own gun?
Or should there have been a qualified armorer on the set?
Why does it have to be either/or? Both should happen and after all of that there should be unwavering muzzle control. I don't trust any of them nor myself to the point that it would override muzzle control. That being said I am sure I would trust you light years ahead of this joke of an armorer and I would clear my gun.
Even after all the trust I would put in you and my own gun safety I still would not point it directly at ANYTHING that I didn't intend to destroy or kill. If the positioning did not allow me to aim a dummy point then I would stop until the director could position everyone properly. This cannot be that difficult.
