1911Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 63 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
This just-filed lawsuit against Baldwin appears backed by substantive facts and specific allegations:

"Alec Baldwin wasn’t scripted to fire gun in ‘Rust’ scene: lawsuit."

"The script supervisor who called 911 after Alec Baldwin shot and killed a woman on the “Rust” movie set has accused the actor of recklessness in practicing for a scene that didn’t even call for him to fire his gun."

“Alec Baldwin intentionally, without just cause or excuse, cocked and fired the loaded gun even though the upcoming scene to be filmed did not call for the cocking and firing of the firearm,” script supervisor Mamie Mitchell said in a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in Los Angeles County Superior Court. “Mr. Baldwin chose to play Russian Roulette with a loaded gun without checking it and without having the armorer do so.”

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
The article also mentions another crew member who "shot herself in the foot" as well as allegations of loaded guns being used on the set for target practice. I wasn't as yet aware of the former incident...and the latter incident is described with greater specificity than in most prior media accounts.

Sounds like the character "English Bob" from "Unforgiven" would have found himself very much at home on the "Rust" set.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 · (Edited)
Obviously the script (a document) will be entered as evidence. I'll guess that the script supervisor knows the script pretty well, and she wouldn't have made script-specific allegations without concrete knowledge of the detailed script.

I do not expect (just my opinion) this lawsuit to be easily dismissed. The attorney who prepared it appears to know his stuff.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
Of course it should come as no surprise that the lawyers are lining up before the police have even completed their investigation.
Normal in this type of case. Police investigations do not necessarily reveal -- or publicly report -- all relevant details, nor do they take a client advocacy position. ...if an attorney perceives a good case, there's no reason to delay legal actions merely to see what the police eventually report.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 · (Edited)
Script doesn't exclude a possibility of Baldwin being directed by Hutchins or Souza to do that. Off script things are done all the time and sometimes even make it into the films.

Ultimately I, again, would let the investigators do their job and present the findings. I think they would be able to determine what was called or not called and by whom without relying on a statement of a person who claims a physical trauma from a revo ball flying somewhere in her vicinity.
This presumes a neutral "wait and see" perspective. Which is fine if someone has no personal involvement, and is equally satisfied with any result the police ultimately come up with.

But if someone does have a personal involvement and a desire for their view to prevail, it makes sense to be represented by an attorney advocating on your behalf. This is pretty standard legal advice, it's not something that's controversial.

One cannot presuppose that the police will do this for you. Furthermore, police will be reviewing and reporting on matters from a criminal law perspective, not a civil tort law perspective.

In preparing the best possible civil case, it's foolish to choose to limit one's evidence, timing, and presentation to what has been obtained and publicly shared by police for possible criminal prosecution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 · (Edited)
Even considering that it was written by a team of lawyers, if true it paints a picture of recklessness. Too many safety rules ignored, any one of which would have prevented anyone being hurt or killed.

I had read that there were two ADs of blanks. I wonder if someone peppered their foot.

Often lawyers wait for a criminal conviction before suing, I've read that it makes it far easier to prove their case.
Indeed. +1911 on all points.

The last point tends to be most true if a criminal conviction is anticipated with considerable confidence, as was probably the case with O.J. It was not the case with Bill Cosby. There are a number of people who are not expecting a criminal conviction of Baldwin; and that has to enter into the legal calculus.

—-

Another key point of differentiation in this case is that no further investigation is needed to ascertain who pointed the gun at Ms. Hutchins and then pulled the trigger. Someone could wait for years, and this core truth isn’t going to change.

We already know this, and for those who think this known act by Baldwin was absolutely wrongful, in and of itself, no “results“ of any investigation are going to change this essential truth.

Very few Forum members believe that Baldwin’s actions were within his rights. These views have been shared by crew members who have spoken out. In other words, these are not the perspectives of some extremist
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
When O.J. Simpson was acquitted for murder the Goldman's filed in Civil court and won. It doesn't appear that the police are going to file criminal charges, then why wait for anything. Innocence in a criminal court has nothing to do with Civil liability
Exactly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
Correct. In this case a personal involvement is to get compensated for, and I quote, "a physical trauma" and "injury" from a single revolver shot fired somewhere in her presence. Credibility through the roof.

I sure hope more of the crew people file same type of lawsuits. Imagine like 10 people claiming a physical trauma and injury from a single lead ball flying by. You'd think he triggered a claymore.
I‘m gathering that you believe the lawsuit will be dismissed out of hand in the courthouse on grounds that the plaintiff has no standing, no cause of complaint.

I always respect your opinions, you’ve well earned respect. Perhaps you’re correct. So that’s probably that, and we can move the discussion onward to other aspects of the case.

As to motivations, many people believe that anger, not money, is what spurs many civil tort actions. I think this is possible here, but only the person filing the action knows for sure.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #21 · (Edited)
Was that scene indoors? (in the Church?) If so, I bet their ears were ringing pretty bad!
Definitely indoors. And that indoor set was where the last photo including Ms.Hutchins was taken, A Googke search on ”last photo“ would probably bring it up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #23 · (Edited)
I was simply being sarcastic about how transparent that lawsuit is, and that in their attempt to maximize potential gains, which can only be done by maximizing injury, that woman lost quite a bit of credibility, at least in my eyes.

I don't think that this means she's lying about him being off script. If he really shot the gun without being prompted to do so and point specifically "there", in my eyes he's guilty of a criminal negligence and I hope he's charged appropriately. Not as a producer but as an actor.

I also don't think that her lawsuit will be necessarily dismissed. I think that the lawyers will pivot from physical trauma to emotional as soon as physical doesn't work out.


Separately, I do appreciate your respect for my opinions even when different from yours. Same goes your way. I am naturally a very sarcastic person so sometimes that looks nearly caustic online but it is all really lighthearted on my side.
You’re always a class act and have added a lot of value here for years. +1911



And with a wry smile, if we can step away from the details, isn’t it funny how much importance we humans often attach to whether the next person’s opinions match our own. We humans really tend to like confirmation, even when it probably makes no difference.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jr24

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #24 · (Edited)
I heard it was a temper tantrum as well. Turned the Guns on his coworkers expecting to just be a dick and blast them with blanks..........
Based on my impressions of Baldwin, and what bits of info (whether all true or not) have trickled out, I think this is highly likely. The explanation perfectly matches the actions. Kinda like taunting in football, only with a pistol.

Sadly, Ms. Hutchins was in the middle (in front of the Director advising the actors).

But it would sure be difficult to prove. Witnesses would have to testify as to details and the defense (prime $$$ legal talent) would cross-examine, trying to discredit the witness’ testimony.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Zerodefect

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #26 ·
I seriously doubt that we are going to see any conviction for anything at least on the part of Alec Baldwin.
This is one time where I have no clue, no sense/guess, as to which way it will go. So for now, I’ll go with your prediction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #28 · (Edited)
The co-producer (joint owner of the enterprise ) consciously aiming an unchecked pistol at someone, pulling the trigger, and firing a fatal shot would be a first-time workers comp case.

(With a smile, I’ve had one or two disagreeable reporting relationships, but I’ve never had one like that.😳).

But a lot of things in this case are “first time”, This (workers comp) has been discussed both here (earlier threads) and on legal forums…without an absolutely clear resolution.

I‘m not an attorney but I think it’s safe to say that somewhere on the continuum spectrum of accidental to manslaughter, there’s going to be some point beyond which it’s no longer a workplace accident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 45ofcourse

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #30 ·
I am not suggested the people shot were only in the workers comp category, I was referring to the two employees who are now claiming damage of emotional trauma.

A key point may very will lie in whether a criminal charge, is filed. workers comp is designed to replace all lawsuits for injury while going about the work a person is hired to do. Being the victim of a criminal act is beyond what the worker comp statutes were designed to do, however, it all depends on the law of the state. If a person were driving a truck cross country and got shot by a stranger, it would be a worker;s comp case against the employer,, you got shot while working for the employer. However, you could always always sue the guy who shot you.

In this case, it looks to me like the two people shot have both a workers comp suit against the company, and a tort suit against Alex.
Ahh. Understand. +1911.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #31 · (Edited)
One thing that’s missing in my legal education (I do have some, but mostly in the commercial /financial/securities realm) is an understanding of what’s likely to occur if the allegations against the defendants are proven, or provable, to be true; but the plaintiff is judged to have only a tangential relationship to the loss of life or other damages that occurred. E.g., “mental anguish”.

Obviously this would affect the amount of any award. It would be scaled way down. But how likely is it to get the defendant completely off the hook, if the allegations are otherwise all true? Being judged guilty/responsible for another person’s death is no small thing for a notable person. No more “A List” accolades and peripheral benefits.

Seems that the defendant (Baldwin and others) would need to get the lawsuit thrown out before it went to trial.

---

Assuming that the plaintiff's attorney is being paid only on successful results, it seems that at least one licensed attorney is smelling $$$'s here.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #35 · (Edited)
Bud, I am in a medical field. I can tell you stories from now till infinity. I can tell you stories where pharm would go litigate and convincingly win several cases against their product just to establish its safety in a court, and then settle the rest of them against same product because it is cheaper. Consumers pay that settlement anyway.
It is not the lawyers though. It is people of this country who drive that train.
In your profession, prosecuting attorneys do tend to be of the ambulance chaser variety. And their clients willing participants in a chase for $$$.

Not always, but often enough. They're on television adverts enough to "earn" the "ambulance chaser" sobriquet. E.g. "if you're suffering from x and have ever used product y, you may be entitled to $$$... call me right away".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #47 · (Edited)
An Explanation:

It was the specificity and detail, as well as words of a person directly present, of the allegations relative to Baldwin that caught my attention.

I understand that some may be focused more on whether the plaintiff is nothing more than a money chasing dirt bag. And a perspective that no charges or lawsuits should be filed against Baldwin by anyone other than New Mexico legal authorities (which likely won’t happen) or surviving family (husband already says Baldwin wasn’t at fault, so Baldwin appears good to go there).

These perspectives — trusting the NM investigation and eliminating or disparaging the filing of civil actions against Baldwin and exploring others’ pecuniary motives — were not my focus or interest. But it’s perfectly fair to focus on whatever one’s interest are in the matter.

My focus was on the former...the allegations against Baldwin, whom I feel was seriously in the wrong. I feel these allegations have merit. Doesn’t make me right, but that was my focus point and reason for starting this thread.

Again, just an explanation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Honest Tom

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #50 ·
I keep trying to follow all of this thread, but, my frustration always leads me back to one thought! Whatever bad thing happens to Baldwin,... couldn't happen to a more deserving individual!!!

jm .02
Thank you AZ.

That was my whole point in starting this thread. I didn’t expect it to turn into a disparagement of the plaintiff…or assertions that the plaintiff should have worn ear muffs. But other perspectives are what these discussions are all about. That’s why most of us are here, to exchange insights and opinions, and hopefully learn by sharing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AZdesert1911

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #52 · (Edited)
oh? I've seen reports from at least three people on the set, including the medic, claiming no shooting was planned.

Now a sudden change of plans, without a safety briefing meeting to explain the change might have been why this plaintiff was so angry during the 911 call she placed.
Indeed. Baldwin was the one and only person who unilaterally “changed plans” to aim and pull the trigger.

Even Baldwin, all negligence aside, was not expecting a gun shot.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
14,128 Posts
Discussion Starter · #55 · (Edited)
^^^
Definitely a rehearsal.

Neither of the two camera units were filming, thus obviously a rehearsal.

The only reason the gun was even present was for Baldwin to practice a drawing from the holster. Otherwise, only a hand motion or a blue gun would have been the norm. And by some comments, he felt he had already practiced enough, was getting a bit frustrated …and wanted to “get on“ with filming the scene. (They were already over budget, and Baldwin was co-producer with a financial interest).

Equally obvious, there was no reason to be firing blanks (with no filming) or for anyone to be donning ear muffs (which no one did). So I was surprised to see posts here about the plaintiff “should” have expected a loud pop and worn muffs.
 
1 - 20 of 63 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top