Baldwin sued over fatal 'Rust' shooting

Bob Fosse Nov. 11  03:21 pm JST

Nicolas Cage wasn’t a fan of the armorer’s lax protocol and demanded her removal from his set.

LOL, if Nic Cage thinks your a danger, time to re-evaluate your life.

It has been said that in America one can sue a ham sandwich, if so inclined.

Ah, the American way, sue.

The low-budget movie's chief lighting technician Serge Svetnoy says in the lawsuit that the accidental killing "was caused by the negligent acts and omissions" of lead actor and producer Baldwin and others.

Hard to argue with that.

It’s easy to argue with that. That’s why we have lawyers and courts and such.

I’d easily argue that a media quote (which you usually dismiss) from a lighting technician is not sufficient evidence for cause or blame.

But maybe that’s just me, being all logical and legal minded. Maybe I watch too much CSI.

Spoiler: I’ve never watched CSI.

Baldwin is the producer which means he is in charge of all the logistics, scripts, props etc. Sure most of the simple stuff is tasked to other people but he is in the end responsible for the production. so yes makes sense that he would be facing the civil lawsuit, although I am not convinced that a member of the crew should be the one to sue the production, I am guessing it will be a flop of a lawsuit and we will never hear another word about it

The person who pulled the trigger is responsible.

Trinity

What would Clint Eastwood say?

He’d say, what kind of idiot points a loaded gun at his “dear friend” and pulls the trigger?

Or... "What kind of idiot points a gun he believed to be armed with a blank at a camera some distance away?" Baldwin would have had no reason to believe the gun was armed.

It's like blaming an actor for crashing a car in a scene and killing someone because someone had cut the brakes. Who would you blame? The actor?

My view is that real guns have no place in a film or TV programme. Non-firing replicas can look just as real, but can be fitted with electronic pyrotechnics which only go "paff!" and flash.

The low-budget movie's chief lighting technician Serge Svetnoy says in the lawsuit that the accidental killing "was caused by the negligent acts and omissions" of lead actor and producer Baldwin and others.

Hard to argue with that.

Hard to come to such a conclusion yet unless one is particularly biased one way or the other. Let’s wait.

hate to break it to you but the ability of the actor on the set to do anything else is quite limited, which is the ENTIRE point of certifying and declaring, audibly, a weapon 'cold'

this is why baldwin bears no direct blame as an actor.

as producer though it makes sense there would be a civil case or against the corporation that is the movie. The professionals roles are the ongoing aspect of this case and where criminal statutes will be sought and investigated more.

The low-budget movie's chief lighting technician Serge Svetnoy says in the lawsuit that the accidental killing "was caused by the negligent acts and omissions" of lead actor and producer Baldwin and others.

Hard to argue with that.

If your suing Baldwin you should show something that he did, that was negligent and allowed this to happen.

The basic rule in litigation is that you start by suing everyone who could possibly be liable, then sort them out later once the process had moved along and both sides have a good idea of where the evidence is pointing. The lawsuit isn't just against Baldwin, he is one of several named defendants who might bear some liability.

What would Clint Eastwood say?

He’d say, what kind of idiot points a loaded gun at his “dear friend” and pulls the trigger?

That's my point actually.

Yeah, but the alternative is that negligent people have no liability at all to the people harmed by their actions, which seems to be what you are arguing for. Criminal cases don't provide that - they punish wrongdoers but don't actually ensure that the wrongdoer compensates their victim, which is why the legal system provides both.

This goes with the original question I asked at the beginning of this tragedy. Why was there a live ammo revolver anywhere near the set anyway?

Not sure if this author of this article neglected important information or if lawyer for the suing party was just trying to start commotion in the press, but all the things mentioned dont say much.

" there was no reason for a live bullet to be placed in that .45 Colt revolver" - [no justified reason,] no one is denying that.

"did not follow film industry practice on the handling of weapons and allowed a revolver loaded with live ammunition" - yes, I would assume pointing loaded weapons is not industry practice (but who did what to allow the weapon to be live?)

"We are asking for a full and complete investigation" - what a great idea, the suing party's lawyer should go Santa Fe and explain that concept to the police

If your suing Baldwin you should show something that he did, that was negligent and allowed this to happen.

Nicolas Cage wasn’t a fan of the armorer’s lax protocol and demanded her removal from his set. If only Baldwin and his colleagues had been as diligent.

I don't really want to play the 'court of public opinions', but the case sounds pretty open and shut.

Gutierrez-Reed was in charge of the weapons, early initial reports had stated they had been messing around and shooting a beer cans, it was also reported she removed the spent case from the gun. Not too mention the mix of live and dummy rounds, yet she i prepared to state 'There were no live rounds on set'.

Halls has already admitted he declared the gun 'cold' without properly checking.

Alec, I love him, but this is his production. He would have known about the fooling around, would have known about the complaints from crew, but was apparently fine with his 'well oiled group'.

It just sounds like a group of Yahoos were fooling around and the inevitable happened. Very sad and sorry state of affairs for Ms Hutchin's family.

If there is a silver lining and real guns are not used anymore that’s good. In the meantime, this incident needs to be thoroughly investigated and somebody has to be held responsible for it.

GdTokyo

If I were the insurance company.....

You'd be looking to milk as much money out of a woman's death as you could?

I have to agree with Rainyday. I think Baldwin is both civilly and criminally at risk for a negligence case. If I were the insurance company, I would be looking hard for a clause allowing the company to refuse any claims based on having live ammo on set because the civil judgments are going to be enormous.

Money isn't going to make that trauma go away,

That's my point actually.

DaninthepanToday  02:00 pm JST

One defence of having guns in the US is if they didn't have guns they didn't have guns they would just resort to knives. Hard to imagine Baldwin mistaking a plastic knife for a real one and jokingly start start stabbing someone.

Never heard that one.

But Americans don't need a defense anyway--the right to bear arms is in their Constitution. Don't know why it is such a big issue.

More people die from deaths in automotive accidents. More die from drug overdoses. I'd like to see an overall reduction in deaths, and cars and drugs are two good places to start.

He is innocent. They set Baldwin up!

One defence of having guns in the US is if they didn't have guns they didn't have guns they would just resort to knives. Hard to imagine Baldwin mistaking a plastic knife for a real one and jokingly start start stabbing someone.

"Simply put, there was no reason for a live bullet to be placed in that .45 Colt revolver or to be present anywhere on the 'Rust' set, and the presence of a bullet in a revolver posed a lethal threat to everyone in its vicinity," the suit, submitted to a Los Angeles court, says.

This is what the truth is.

Hannah Gutierrez-Reed (the armourer) - Her culpability is based on whether she was supposed to put a live bullet in the gun.

Dave Halls - is culpable in the sense that he should not have declared a gun "cold" when it was in fact loaded with a live bullet

Baldwin - is culpable in the sense that he should have checked the gun (if possible) for a live bullet, if it is possible to do so

But the basics of the entire problem is that a live bullet should not have been anywhere near that set.

This should be handled as a criminal negligence case, no need for people to try and get a payday out of it.

Why?

A) A criminal case and a civil case can both proceed, they aren't mutually exclusive.

B) I don't understand why the plaintiff in this case shouldn't be entitled to seek compensation in a civil claim. While the plaintiff wasn't shot himself, this must have been an insanely traumatizing experience for him - literally seeing his friend get shot right in front of him and then dying in his arms. If that was caused by someone's negligence, which it clearly was, then they should be entitled to some form of compensation for that. Money isn't going to make that trauma go away, but its all the legal system can offer and its better than nothing.

Svetnoy, who had worked with Hutchins on a number of previous films said he was close when Baldwin fired the gun on October 21.

This should be handled as a criminal negligence case, no need for people to try and get a payday out of it.

and now the snit hits the fan.

Not gonna be pretty for anyone involved.

Burying the lede a bit with that last line. They found existing blanks and live rounds mixed together already? At this point, the absolute best case scenario is that this is criminal negligence and this lawsuit sounds entirely justified. Every person, including Baldwin, who determiend that a live gun was cold should be at fault.

MatToday  12:46 pm JST

Being sued should be the least of his concerns. He should be charged with facilitated murder.

Same for Halls and Gutierrez-Reed. And a mix of real and dummy bullets was found. And this may or may not be a factor but the victim was Ukrainian, not American. Just a hunch. either way may she RIP, she never really started in her career or even her life.