Snake-Eyes
Master
That is accurate, if you want to play semantics.
He is an ACTOR playing a ROLE. He was handed a live firearm with live ammunition for a PRETEND scene in a MOVIE by someone whose sole responsibility it was to make sure something like that did not happen. As an ACTOR, was he to fire a test round somewhere to ensure it was blanks and not live ammunition? This was not a “misuse of a firearm,” he did exactly what was in the script.
This is the armorer’s responsibility. It should have been taken care of before the firearm even reached the set. Did he pull the trigger? Absolutely. But he did not prepare the prop firearm for the make believe scene. If you want to charge someone, charge the armorers. I’d even one-up it and hit them with negligent homicide as well as an involuntary manslaughter charge and then hit them with a pile of federal FFL charges.
Anyone else here worked on a film set? It’s an effort defined by very specific teams that each bring a different expertise to produce a complete project. If that woman had been killed by a lighting rig falling on her, you’d be damn sure the rigging company would get sued into oblivion.
You seem to be quite emotionally equating the armorer’s JOB with the actor’s LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY.
The armorer is paid by a private company to do a job.
The actor is paid by a private company to do a job.
None of their job titles or duties relieves them of LEGAL RESPONSIBLITY to Not Kill Someone.
By your rationale, a simple job title relieves everyone around that person of culpability?
So then, for example, I could start an LLC that is filming a mockumentary of my life. The LLC will hire someone with terminal cancer to be the ”set armorer”. He will hand me weapons and a script that says to point the weapon at certain “undesirables” and pull the trigger. Then, BY YOUR RATIONALE, the Armorer is to blame (and supposedly needs to be hit with all kinds of legal fireworks) and I would be completely innocent and untouchable?
Wow.