ListNook

bauhaus83i 19 hr ago +2561

The lawsuit is by a gaffer, not related to the woman who was killed. Gaffer claims emotional distress because he was close to person shot and nearly shot. Doesn’t seem like a strong case.

2561

LibrarianNo6865 19 hr ago +1338

Just sounds like someone gambling on him not wanting this story brought back into the news and wants some money thrown at them to go away.

1338

ukexpat 18 hr ago +71

Baldwin’s insurance company will be handling the defense for him so the “settle or fight” call will be up to them.

71

Same-Suggestion-1936 14 hr ago +35

So really just a dude suing an insurance company and hoping for an easy buck. Insurance companies are litigious. Sometimes they accept it as a cost of doing business. We'll see if this guy made a smart move because if he doesn't win it's his money being wasted.

35

ukexpat 10 hr ago +3

Technically he’s not suing the insurer but that’s what happens in practice. The insurer takes over defense of the claim.

3

Dottsterisk 18 hr ago +596

It will TOTALLY help their career in the film industry. Everyone will be flocking to work with them.

596

Expert_Succotash2659 18 hr ago +169

I think the person wants the money to pay for some time off from Hollywood. Or gambling/drugs/just a d*****

169

[deleted] 18 hr ago +66

[removed]

66

EddieVanzetti 16 hr ago +35

The whole crew was scabs once the union workers walked off.

35

jamieT97 13 hr ago +12

the armourer a nepo scab who had a long list of complaints under her

12

PoultryTechGuy 14 hr ago +10

Are you really a scab if you're not part of the union to begin with?

10

EddieVanzetti 14 hr ago +6

Eh, debatable. Now once the union walks off and you don't, then you are undoubtably a scab.

6

Unumbotte 14 hr ago +12

I didn't know there was money available for being a d*****. Excuse me while I pop my collar.

12

SonovaVondruke 18 hr ago +23

He's a gaffer, so that all goes without saying.

23

TheCh0rt 15 hr ago +22

Hollywood worker here. It's not about that. Nor does anybody care. I've been fucked over by people and thought, well nobody will work with that person again if I make it loud and clear, so I did. Guess what? Nothing changed. 20 years later, dude still has a thriving career. Even wrote me last year asking if I would work with him again, apologizing with a Chat GPT generated apology letter. Some people are absolute sociopaths. Alec Baldwin knows how to shut these people down I'm sure. He's banking on him failing to appear in court is my guess

22

Shoot_from_the_Quip 12 hr ago +13

F***, the industry is dead anyway. Just a cash grab while the writing is on the wall.

13

iperblaster 18 hr ago +2

Is gaffer a stable job??

2

SeaBag7480 18 hr ago +54

There are zero stable jobs in Hollywood production rn

54

jaysun92 16 hr ago +25

Idk movie horse wrangler sounds like a stable job

25

typewriter6986 16 hr ago +8

Until an alien starts eating your horses and terrorizing your ranch.

8

jaysun92 16 hr ago +6

Defeat them with the power of balloons

6

typewriter6986 15 hr ago +5

I really am a big fan of that movie, but, lol, they basically defeated Jean Jacket by giving it acid reflux and indigestion.

5

Unumbotte 14 hr ago +3

But enough about the My Little Pony live action movie.

3

Copacetic_ 15 hr ago +4

Yeah it’s a department leading job, and DP’s usually are specific about their gaffers.

4

ditka 17 hr ago +3

as long as you avoid making a blunder

3

DiogenesTheHound 16 hr ago +2

Especially in front of Christian Bale or Tom Cruise

2

Spire_Citron 17 hr ago +15

Seems like if you give them money, you'd be giving it to a lot of other people who were present that day. Better to shut it down.

15

TheCh0rt 15 hr ago +2

Also banking on him not showing up in court

2

simer23 18 hr ago +60

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/zone_of_danger_rule it's a legitimate claim in some states.

60

norsurfit 18 hr ago +53

True, but a zone of danger lawsuit might succeed against the armorer who is negligent, but not against Baldwin, who was not

53

PipChaos 17 hr ago +41

Negligence is the whole debate that was never settled. If Alec had won his court case by jury it would have been. The bar for negligence in a civil matter is lower. He was handed a weapon and told it was cold. Actors don't unload a weapon and check the rounds themselves, they depend on the armorer. So what's left is him pointing the weapon at people and potentially pulling the trigger. He said he didn't pull the trigger. The gun was broken by the labs testing it so we'll never know if it was defective. So what's left is that he pointed the gun at people, and SAG safety guidelines say to never do that. That may be enough for civil negligence.

41

EunuchsProgramer 13 hr ago +12

Wasn't the entire point of the scene to point an unloaded gun at someone? It certainly can't be NEVER. Also, the standard in civil is just more likely than not. Proving the gun wasn't defective could be done other ways than lab testing. A witness could tell the jury they tested the gun earlier that day or something along those lines.

12

Techsupportvictim 11 hr ago +4

The established safety protocol known to every union actor (like Baldwin) is that the armorer brings the gun to set and demonstrates that it’s cold before the actor accepts it. Baldwin accepted a weapon from the 1st AD and accepted a verbal statement from the AD that it was cold.

4

Development-Feisty 16 hr ago +8

He accepted again from someone who was not supposed to give him a gun He didn’t have the safety meeting that morning he is required to have before he’s allowed to accept a gun from anybody including the people allowed to give him guns There was actually no armorer currently hired by the production company at that time. Her contract to do that job had run out and they did not make a new contract for her, she was supposed to be doing a completely different job Which she was doing, nowhere near the set Somebody went into her area and grabbed one of the guns, not her Baldwin then took the gun from the wrong person, did not wait for the mandatory safety barriers to be put in place, then put the weapon up into a shooting position He claims he didn’t pull the trigger, but he did every other action up into that point that he knew he was not allowed to do by SAG safety rules And he knew when he was doing those actions that live rounds had been found on set before and that’s why the crew had walked off

8

PipChaos 15 hr ago +22

The director David Halls handed Baldwin the firearm. This isn’t unusual. What is unusual is that Halls picked the weapon up off of the props cart and just assumed it was a cold gun. Proper safety is supposed to be that the armorer loads the weapon and checks each round in front of the actor or director or everyone. Halls knew that since the armorer didn’t verify it was a cold gun in front of him that he should have done it himself. That’s why he agreed to a plea deal. Alec had every right to assume the proper procedure was followed if he was being told it was a cold gun. Also, the armorer admitted she loaded all the guns on the prop cart. The production did frequently skip safety meetings. While the armorer was contracted for only a specified number of hours on armorer duties and was an assistant to props otherwise, she still was the armorer for the set and had the responsibility for the job. She ultimately is the person accountable for firearms whether she had hours left on that role or not. If she felt that was unsafe, it was her responsibility to walk out. Baldwin pointed the firearm at people which is against SAG rules. Live rounds weren’t found on set prior to the incident. That would have been huge. There were several accidental discharges of blanks on set which, combined with skipped safety meetings, lead to several people walking off.

22

simer23 16 hr ago +7

I think there are proximate cause issues. Legal causation is there, but it's not necessarily reasonably foreseeable that the gun would end up really loaded.

7

Icy-Lobster-203 12 hr ago +2

IIRC, the issue of Baldwin's liability in the shooting was because he was a producer and possibly deemed to be 'in charge' of the entire set. I could be wrong though.

2

Development-Feisty 16 hr ago

Baldwin only wasn’t held criminally negligent because of mistakes made by the prosecution during the initial lead up He was negligent He didn’t follow the safety rules of the set, he didn’t follow safety rules that are just common sense There’s multiple photographs and video of him violating safety rules on that set The entire crew walked off the set because it was unsafe and they said someone was going to get killed and he continued to f*** around with live weapons The armorer wasn’t even on set that day, they didn’t even have one they were paying to be on site any longer at the time this accident happened He accepted gun from the wrong person, didn’t wait for safety barriers, played with it like a toy, and killed someone

0

Tunafishsam 15 hr ago +14

Everything I've read said the crew walked off because of the long hours and the long drive from their housing. They were like 2 hours away from the set, so they had to work all day then drive when tired at night. Nothing to do with firearm safety.

14

Development-Feisty 7 hr ago +3

Here- read this https://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/local_news/rust-crew-members-raised-safety-concerns-before-fatal-shooting/article_57c7acc8-3390-11ec-8d8b-e3ab6a33783a.html

3

Round-Medicine2507 19 hr ago +19

So youre saying as a regular person in the Midwest I should also sue...

19

Low-Temperature-6962 19 hr ago +4

Anyone who read or especially commented on the news and experienced adverse reactions to the dopamine inherent therein. Class action.

4

PipChaos 18 hr ago +15

He should be suing the production for an unsafe workplace, but that wouldn't be as lucrative.

15

40mm_of_freedom 18 hr ago

That’s what he’s doing.

0

PipChaos 17 hr ago +33

That's not what he's doing. He's only suing Baldwin, specifically for punitive damages, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress for pointing and potentially firing the weapon. The production companies on rust are: El Dorado Pictures, Short Porch Pictures, Thomasville Pictures, April Productions Producers are: Melina Spadone, Ryan Winterstern, Nathan Klingher, Alec Baldwin, Matt DelPiano, Ryan Donnell Smith, Anjul Nigam, Grant Hill

33

RellenD 18 hr ago -4

Ummm. Baldwin was a producer

-4

tosser1579 15 hr ago +11

One of 18 and not the line producer.

11

BigLittleSlof 16 hr ago +1

Erm 🤓☝️

1

KimJongFunk 19 hr ago +9

I can see a case for reimbursement of therapy bills for any emotional trauma, but not much more beyond that. However, I doubt it would have gone to trial if that was the only thing this person was asking for.

9

DJGlennW 19 hr ago +226

Movie insurance generally covers on-set accidents. The lawyers think they can get more from Baldwin himself.

226

[deleted] 17 hr ago +26

[removed]

26

Development-Feisty 16 hr ago +14

It actually sounds more like he’s claiming PTSD from his coworker getting shot and killed in front of him because another coworker didn’t wait for safety barriers to be erected and played with a weapon outside the rules his coworker had agreed to with the union before weapons were allowed in the workplace

14

DefeatedByPoland 13 hr ago +123

If the actor is supposed to be the one inspecting the weapons to ensure it's not a real gun with real bullets in it, there's no point in having armorers on the set to begin with.

123

JcbAzPx 9 hr ago +28

An actor should definitely not have the responsibility to be sure any prop they are given is safe. They cannot be trusted with that.

28

Eisbaer811 8 hr ago +8

He is being sued not as an actor, but as a producer. As the “man in charge” of the whole production, he allegedly put so much time pressure on people while cutting corners that this could happen. Nobody expects an actor to be responsible for the status of their gun, not even the person suing here

8

DarkOverLordCO 7 hr ago +2

The movie had many producers responsible for different things. Baldwin was not the “man in charge”. His producer credit was related to his help with the script and presumably to attract him to the role. Baldwin is being sued because he pulled the trigger and may have recklessly disregarded the probability that he could cause emotional distress by doing so. That has nothing to do with his producer role.

2

Techsupportvictim 9 hr ago +3

The actors aren’t the ones that are supposed to inspect the weapons but they are supposed to witness the inspection. There was no reason for a bullet to have been in the gun and if he’d probably demanded an inspection on set there wouldn’t have been one in it when he took possession because the armorer would have removed it

3

AZFUNGUY85 18 hr ago +45

I don’t think they’ve litigated this enough.

45

Standard_Public892 15 hr ago +18

Right when I saw this I was like JESUS CHRIST IM SO TIRED OF HEARING ABOUT THIS

18

AudibleNod 19 hr ago +861

>In his ruling, Leiter wrote that “a reasonable jury could find that Mr. Baldwin recklessly disregarded the probability that pointing a gun in the direction of someone, with his finger on the trigger, would cause emotional distress.” Movies aside, wouldn't this open the door for anyone brandishing a firearm at another person?

861

lolheyaj 19 hr ago +268

Being on a movie set is kind of the point though? If that's the scene then that's the scene. Are we gonna ban guns from movies?

268

karlverkade 19 hr ago +319

It would be extremely American to ban guns from movies but not pass the slightest hint of additional legislation on actual guns in real life.

319

Faux-Foe 17 hr ago +34

Only if the guns were e*****.

34

holdbold 16 hr ago +6

From dusk till dawn would like a word

6

Qcws 12 hr ago +2

Typically you never point a firearm at someone on set. It's either completely inert or if you're using a blank firing weapon you use camera tricks to make it look like it's pointed at them.

2

Sickle_Rick 19 hr ago +428

What do you mean movies aside? He was on a movie set and the judge is saying that's opened himself to a lawsuit? So basically all action movies and historical documentaries are on the way out if he loses...

428

Realtrain 19 hr ago +254

This this would be saying that an actor following a script on set that involves a sexual assault scene could now be brought to court?? There's no way this can be enforceable.

254

TravelingMonk 19 hr ago +34

Clearly Clarence Thomas was the judge and he wasn't paid

34

saintash 16 hr ago +1

I listen to the causal crimalist deep dive on the case. He wasn't following script.Technically he wasn't supposed to shoot in that scene. No knew why he did. Best guess was he was trying to make a trailer shot on a take. He was also the most flippant about guy safety on set. So there might a be enough to take to a judge. A whole trial probably not.

1

ohjeaa 18 hr ago +6

I read once that in most action movies they don't actually point the guns at each other. But rather off to the side. Camera angles do the rest. Legit or not? Idk.

6

numberonesorensenfan 17 hr ago +6

Legit. I think the general rule is 15 degrees away. On the rare occasions they *need* to have the gun pointed at an actor, like a closeup of someone with a gun to their head or something, they'll use fake prop guns.

6

Acecn 14 hr ago +2

Which is how any actor with any respect for the danger of firearms would demand a scene be performed. I don't think Baldwin was criminally negligent, but he certainly was run-of-the-mill a****** negligent as soon as he agreed to do a scene where he was going to point a real firearm at one of his coeworkers.

2

Active_Public9375 19 hr ago +14

So it's probably a lot more complicated than that, and probably involves the fact that the gun was actually loaded with live ammunition. Haven't read any court documents myself. Also the civil trial's decision doesn't really matter for other cases. It would need to be appealed to have any real impact on the law.

14

[deleted] 18 hr ago +21

[removed]

21

Takemyfishplease 17 hr ago +3

Civil is very different than criminal isn’t it? Like look at OJ

3

[deleted] 19 hr ago +5

[removed]

5

[deleted] 19 hr ago +21

[removed]

21

Dottsterisk 18 hr ago +8

It’s not a total mystery. IIRC it came out that the armorer, who was an amateur *at best*, was letting people use the guns for target practice with live ammunition when they weren’t needed for filming.

8

PipChaos 18 hr ago +6

I followed the case pretty closely. That was a hersay rumor that never was substantiated. Nobody ever went on record and testified they saw that happen.

6

max_vette 19 hr ago +97

That's already a crime

97

BeardedManatee 19 hr ago +53

Yes a crime, if you are just randomly pointing a gun at someone. Guns can be legally pointed and also discharged with lethal intent, in certain situations.

53

Starseid8712 19 hr ago +19

Incoming lawsuits against ICE agents in Minnesota. Let's go!

19

OzymandiasKoK 19 hr ago +4

That qualified immunity, though.

4

NotAurelStein 18 hr ago +9

Funny to hear this after the Hennepin Attorneys Office just charged an ICE officer for brandishing at citizens.

9

Mig-117 19 hr ago +11

Not if it’s a fake weapon, otherwise action movies wouldn’t get made.

11

Continuum_Gaming 19 hr ago +20

I think we have fairly solid evidence that this wasn’t a fake weapon, though

20

godspareme 19 hr ago +22

Its not that it was a fake weapon. Its the ammunition. There was real ammunition onset alongside the blanks. The actor has no reason to suspect the armorer made a mistake unless otherwise noted (like someone mentioning the safety hazard or reckless behavior). The lawsuit should be on the armorer for recklessly bringing real ammunition to a movie set. (Based on my memory of the case) Edit people have some good responses that do put at least some blame on the actor. See below

22

tosser1579 18 hr ago +10

Also the blanks and the live were nearly identical. Normally they have a drill out process involving a bb and a hole in the part of the cartridge that contains the powder. Also the primer that triggers the bullet is pulled and removed with an inert and faint blue fake primer. So 3 means of checking for an experienced actor... AND the armorer did none of them. She just went to some local and told him to remove the powder and primer material.. So even if Alec had checked, instead of the shake check (there is a loose bb) or the obvious hole, or just looking for the blue marking on the primer, there was nothing. You'd have to be able to guess the weight of a real cartridge vs the fake... and the difference is about 5%. Also he didn't load the gun that was someone else's job. Short of an experienced armorer, no one is going to be able to figure out which bullets were the reals vs the fakes, which is one of the main reasons Alec got off. To say the armorer did a terrible job is an understatement.

10

FerrumDeficiency 18 hr ago +5

I don't think any actor, with any amount of experience, has to know all of that. Or check everything himself. That's why there are specialist in the team. Though I do believe that anyone who handles weapon must go through minimum training and know to not point a gun at a person even if they 100% sure it's not loaded (live). But I don't think this situation would be different if Alec shot another actor when they'd start shooting the scene.

5

Development-Feisty 16 hr ago +5

Yes but the actor must have a safety meeting at the beginning of the day or before the scene is set to happen An actor must wait for safety barriers to be erected before they can touch a prop weapon An actor must only accept a prop weapon from the correct person, the person who gave him the gun the actor knew was literally not allowed to touch the weapons If Baldwin had waited for safety barriers, his coworker would be alive His union contract specifically states the safety rules for handling weapons and Baldwin ignored that contract The filming contract specifically stated the rules for how firearms could be used on set, and Baldwin ignored that contract too

5

Shoot_from_the_Quip 12 hr ago +5

Worth noting: it wasn't a "safety barrier" issue. This happened while blocking out the scene for camera, not while filming. They were in the process of establishing where the camera would be set up and where actors would stand. He had the gun because they were lining up where he'd point it at the lens (which would then be surrounded with lexan plastic safety shielding.) Just adding that my background is working 25+ years as a standby medic in the industry working on some massive shows that have fired off thousands of rounds. I've seen a LOT of gunfire, as well as armorers and prop masters who snatch weapons out of people's hands for not taking them seriously. Professional armorers do not f*** around with their weapons. Once an actor actually lost gun rights on a show and was given a rubber knife instead. Point is, while much was done wrong here, Baldwin was not at fault. He was a producer, sure, but as actors whose names help get things funded usually are, not handling the daily activities of set. The Assistant Director and Armorer were the culpable parties.

5

Development-Feisty 8 hr ago +2

Yeah, he is at fault SAG has specific rules including that you do not use the weapon during a rehearsal because the safety barriers are not set up yet Also, the film itself had very specific local laws it needed to obey in order to utilize firearms on a film set that they did not obey There are videos of Alec Baldwin mishandling firearms on the set before this incident occurred and testimony about how he blew off his mandatory firearms training

2

FerrumDeficiency 15 hr ago +2

That is a lot of additional information, thank you. In that case he definitely should be held accountable, even if to a degree

2

blue_sidd 17 hr ago +6

There was reporting early on that Baldwin was involved with production which included cutting safety provisions through staffing, procedures and materials that would e reasonably been expected to eliminate live ammo on set.

6

Continuum_Gaming 16 hr ago +8

There were also several misfire incidents on-set already at that point

8

Development-Feisty 16 hr ago +7

He didn’t follow the safety rules of the set, he didn’t follow safety rules that are just common sense There’s multiple photographs and video of him violating safety rules on that set The entire crew walked off the set because it was unsafe and they said someone was going to get killed and he continued to f*** around with live weapons The armorer wasn’t even on set that day, they didn’t even have one they were paying to be on site any longer at the time this accident happened He accepted gun from the wrong person, didn’t wait for safety barriers, played with it like a toy, and killed someone

7

Continuum_Gaming 15 hr ago +4

This is what I’ve been saying for years now about it, but everyone sees him crying over it and says he doesn’t deserve to face charges. He played with a dangerous weapon like a toy, even after the armorer’s incompetence had already caused multiple incidents.

4

Zappa2329 19 hr ago +70

Um, no. Svetnoy's lawyers are just throwing out every possible argument possible so they can get money. Clearly the armorer should've done her job right and maybe (I don't know) Baldwin could've done more. But in any case, this was obviously an accident. Why should Baldwin have to pay Svetnoy?

70

mymikerowecrow 19 hr ago +86

It’s such bullshit that Alec baldwins reputation is being dragged through the mud after shooting a friend to death because of the fault of the armorer bringing a loaded gun to the set. That is inexcusable. There is no reason for an actor to suspect that a gun might be loaded or even real for that matter

86

VelvetElvis 18 hr ago +3

They are usually real.

3

thebirdismybaby 18 hr ago +6

This is 100% on the armorer alone, not on Baldwin.

6

Thiezing 19 hr ago +8

google Poptart gun kid for extreme reactions to pointing things.

8

slusho55 18 hr ago +3

Umm, it is already illegal to brandish a firearm at another. Before someone comes in and is like, “But what about…” there’s many privileges that let you brandish a gun against someone, but generally, pointing a real gun at a person is always assault if the person being aimed at reasonably believes the gun is loaded. Plus, infliction of emotional distress claims are really hard to win on, which is what the guy suing Baldwin is actually claiming

3

RobutNotRobot 18 hr ago +3

You can sue someone for brandishing a gun at you. In the context of a movie, a gun is a prop, not a gun.

3

BaselineUnknown 18 hr ago +3

I sure hope so. I can’t think of any situation where having a loaded firearm pointed at you wouldn’t cause some level of emotional distress. Hopefully this allows people to go after police who far too readily rely on 9mm justice.

3

donkeybrainhero 19 hr ago +7

So, they are suing for emotional distress, not death. Totally makes sense. No one ever points a firearm at someone else on a movie set.

7

Astrium6 19 hr ago +7

Yeah, wrongful death suit here would make perfect sense, but infliction of emotional distress? What the actual f***?

7

userhwon 18 hr ago +2

We already have a word for that: Assault.

2

Hrmerder 19 hr ago +5

It’s dumb af. He had already been found not guilty in multiples of ways this is just a money witch hunt

5

amm5061 19 hr ago +7

That's actually already a criminal act. In my state that counts as assault with a deadly weapon.

7

RandomBritishGuy 19 hr ago +10

Does it count as a criminal act when it's on a set, as part of filming a scene? There's normally some level of assumed consent with that sort of thing, otherwise the producers of horror films are going to be liable for scaring the actors for otherwise routine scenes. Just think of how many films/TV shows involving pointing guns around, trying to argue that each instance is a crime is going to be an uphill battle.

10

chocolateboomslang 13 hr ago +32

Man, this is the dumbest case of all time. Sue the other person who is actually responsible for putting live ammo on a movie set. Oh, right, they're not rich.

32

Marcysdad 19 hr ago +225

It's about money, not justice

225

xvoy 19 hr ago +47

Civil trials are not about justice. They are about retribution and compensation/money. Civil trials are also held to a different standard - “a balance of probabilities” rather than “beyond a reasonable doubt”.

47

TheManlyManperor 19 hr ago +38

Money is the only form of justice the American legal system is able to provide. The system isn't set up to provide adequate justice to someone who had their bike stolen, much less anything more serious.

38

xavPa-64 19 hr ago +4

“I used to pray to god everyday for a bike but then I learned god doesn’t work that way, so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness”

4

Sir_Tandeath 19 hr ago +15

That’s the definition of a Civil Trial, yes.

15

Development-Feisty 15 hr ago +2

If you went to work and your boss dismantle the safety equipment and it resulted in your coworker being killed and you almost being killed, do you think your boss would be held liable for dismantling the safety equipment? Alec Baldwin violated contractual safety rules and that is why this happened Now obviously this guy couldn’t say anything when the wrong people were handling the guns, when safety barriers were not erected, when safety meetings were not held, and when Baldwin was playing with the gun when he wasn’t supposed to be touching it because he doesn’t have the power and if he said anything he could not just get fired but he could get blackballed from the industry He now has to live with the PTSD of not only having a coworker killed in front of him but with not having said anything when the set was not obeying the contractual rules agreed to for the handling a firearms

2

Lemesplain 19 hr ago +271

Baldwin is a d*****, but it’s not the actors responsibility to know the weapons better than the on-set armorer. The armorer is the main offender here, though blame could also be placed on the person who hired such a negligent armorer. That would be the producer, I think.

271

RarelyReadReplies 18 hr ago +32

Just curious, but why is Baldwin a d*****? You just mean in general, or something he did in relation to this story?

32

alison_bee 14 hr ago +14

Idk, my husband worked with him recently and said he was actually really nice and chill. And my was *highly* skeptical going into the job with him, but ultimately had nothing but good things to say.

14

Iohet 18 hr ago +14

He's known for being a bit of a tool. Sometimes to paparazzi (so perhaps deserved at times) and sometimes to others, like to his daughter in that leaked voicemail

14

dedsqwirl 14 hr ago +7

Also that time he got a ticket on his bicycle. He didn't have his ID on him so he yelled at a cop he was famous and then he put her name and badge number up on Twitter.

7

BigJellyfish1906 19 hr ago +52

>That would be the producer, I think. Which is…

52

RandomBritishGuy 19 hr ago +17

I mean, according to Google there's 6 producers, potentially 13 depending on the source (though I think that includes executive producers as well). Fair enough if they want to sue for negligence in hiring the armourer, but they should be suing all of them in that case.

17

LordShnooky 18 hr ago +8

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11001074/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_cst_sm. Waaaay more than that.

8

RandomBritishGuy 18 hr ago +3

Damn, I didn't realise it was so many. So 8 producers, and it looks like around 100 executive producers unless I miscounted?

3

tosser1579 15 hr ago +3

I believe that the trial was looking at around 18 of them seriously, mostly Pickle the main line producer who actually hired the crew. Baldwin was specifically determined not to have any significant authority over the props crew.

3

Major_Pomegranate 19 hr ago +135

Melina Spadone Ryan Winterstern Nathan Klingher Alec Baldwin Matt DelPiano Ryan Donnell Smith Anjul Nigam Grant Hill Lawsuits just focus on Baldwin since he's the one with money

135

JasperLamarCrabbb 19 hr ago +8

Extremely improbable that a person becomes a movie producer with movie stars in those movies without already having money

8

LordShnooky 19 hr ago +50

Actors get EP credits all the time as part of their contract (usually a pay cut as actor in exchange for some box office). He wasn't the producer running the show, nor did he choose the armorer.

50

[deleted] 18 hr ago +4

[removed]

4

Lemesplain 19 hr ago +7

Exactly. But the lawsuit would need to be specifically worded to make that connection.

7

Development-Feisty 15 hr ago +1

Baldwin was negligent He didn’t follow the safety rules of the set, he didn’t follow safety rules that are just common sense There’s multiple photographs and video of him violating safety rules on that set The entire crew walked off the set because it was unsafe and they said someone was going to get killed and he continued to f*** around with live weapons The armorer wasn’t even on set that day, they didn’t even have one they were paying to be on site any longer at the time this accident happened He accepted gun from the wrong person, didn’t wait for safety barriers, played with it like a toy, and killed someone

1

Robdon326 16 hr ago +10

All he did was act& that acting had him pull a trigger. How is he responsible? Stop the camera, check what kind of bullets,then start filming again? Give me a break

10

18k_gold 16 hr ago +25

I don't know why he is being sued. He didn't load the gun. the prop person is responsible for it. Alec Baldwin pulled the trigger but did his job as an actor. he didn't know it contained a live round, he couldn't have known.

25

devllen05 19 hr ago +120

Christ, leave the poor guy alone. It's not his f****** fault.

120

Saturn9Toys 12 hr ago +6

Is that f****** armorer in prison yet? Baldwin is an ass, but it was clearly her fault and not his.

6

StumblingDark 10 hr ago +2

I think she's actually *finished* her prison sentence at this point.

2

[deleted] 19 hr ago +15

[deleted]

15

Embedded_Vagabond 19 hr ago +98

Leave the man alone already

98

GogglesPisano 18 hr ago +16

He dared mock Dear Leader. He must be punished forever.

16

Born-Guess-2367 15 hr ago +6

He aimed pointed and pulled the trigger of a gun at 2 people when he was not supposed to. He was not doing a scene that required that. They weren't even filming. He definitely isn't the only one to blame but he was negligent and has some fault.

6

CuppaHatas 15 hr ago +15

Leave the man alone already

15

PlasmidEve 15 hr ago +5

This is still going on?

5

modernoverdrive 16 hr ago +13

He's already gone through two trials. This is ridiculous.

13

kinglittlenc 16 hr ago +14

I thought this was a suit from the womans family. Nope its some lady in lighting claiming emotional distress. Just a shameless cash grab. People who bring suits like this should be charged when the lose imo.

14

elitegenes 19 hr ago +30

For how long is this story going to be dragged? For another 50 years?

30

BeardedManatee 19 hr ago +50

Total c***. The armorer or the studio should face all of these consequences. Alec is not a perfect human but he was handed a "prop" gun with the full expectation that it was loaded with blanks. He's probably done this 100 times and it was fine. What is he supposed to do? Unload the gun, inspect the bullets, and realize they are not blanks? He is not paid to be a firearms expert.

50

pokemike1 19 hr ago +19

So is this opening the possibility of a law suit for any actor that brandishes a firearm in any scene?

19

danshoebridge 18 hr ago +7

Keanu Reeves better watch out. I just watched The Matrix and he was waving a lot of those things about.

7

shayKyarbouti 19 hr ago +5

Has anyone seen this movie? Is it any good?

5

Weightmonster 15 hr ago +4

Any unnatural death = lawsuit in this country

4

RazzleThatTazzle 14 hr ago +4

So stupid. "I got scared that someone was aiming a prop gun on the set of a western". Thats entirely your problem

4

Darius2112 19 hr ago +36

I could see a civil suit based on the amount of negligence on set and the fact that Baldwin was a producer. But not because seeing a gun pointed at someone causes emotional distress.

36

[deleted] 18 hr ago +9

[removed]

9

LordShnooky 17 hr ago +4

All producers have money. He's a household name with a reputation they can try to tarnish.

4

LangyMD 19 hr ago +1

Yes, exactly.

1

steathrazor 14 hr ago +6

Are they really still trying to go after him for this bullshit? Even if it's just a civil trial it should still be the company behind the production not an individual person

6

got_No_Time_to_BLEED 18 hr ago +16

I don’t see how this was Alec Baldwins fault at all.

16

mcasao 11 hr ago +2

Pretty sure he was the producer, not just an actor in the movie which is why he is being sued.

2

jedidihah 19 hr ago +3

Is the movie ever going to be released, or even completed? I feel like no one would be thinking of anything else throughout the movie.

3

Most_Victory1661 18 hr ago +5

I think it was released last year It was last May I had to look it up

5

jedidihah 18 hr ago +4

Wtf, yeah it was released May 2, 2025. I guess it just wasn’t good and plagued with controversy from the shooting and death.

4

ChangingShips 19 hr ago +17

It is 100% the armorer on sets fault not Alec’s

17

TheCrazedTank 19 hr ago +13

His responsibility for the shooting starts and ends with his EP duties, that’s it. He had no reasonable belief that the firearm he was handed was live.

13

RobutNotRobot 18 hr ago +7

This is not likely to be successful. You have to not only prove you were damaged but you have to prove that Baldwin acted in a manner to cause it above and beyond his role as an actor doing a role. The criminal case broke down because it's ridiculous to put the liability for safe use of a prop on the actor when it's someone else's job.

7

ohjeaa 18 hr ago +8

The criminal case broke down because of a Brady Violation when the Prosecution didn't submit the ammunition evidence to the defense, so the case was dismissed with prejudice on that legal technicality. Not because the dude holding the gun wasn't liable for the gun.

8

Development-Feisty 15 hr ago +2

Alec Baldwin agreed to follow very specific safety procedures in relationship to the handling of firearms and then did not follow the safety procedures. If he had followed the safety procedures he had agreed to in writing then he would not have killed someone

2

Technical-Fly-6835 18 hr ago +8

I know just this much about this case - Alec Baldwin fired the gun like he was supposed to for the act. Using props is normal. But it turned out to be real fun with real bullet. Could someone please tell me Why is he accused of killing the woman?

8

CrashB111 15 hr ago +8

Because he portrayed an unflattering satire of Donald Trump on SNL for years, MAGA folks made it their mission to slander and ruin him at any opening. That's the entire reason this is still being talked about so many years after it happened.

8

KimJongFunk 19 hr ago +12

> Serge Svetnoy, a gaffer on “Rust,” first filed a lawsuit in November 2021, alleging that he narrowly missed being hit while on set that day. He claimed that cost-cutting and corner-cutting measures on the Western meant that Baldwin, armorer Hannah Gutierrez-Reed and other producers “were consciously aware of the wrongfulness and harmfulness of their conduct.” > He alleges that he suffered from emotional distress due to negligence on the part of Baldwin and Rust Movie Productions. I think the full extent of these claims might be difficult to prove in court, but if the gaffer had medical bills for therapy needed to address witnessing the event, then I believe there is at least a limited case for him recouping those therapy costs from the production company. Anything beyond that I think would be too much.

12

omnichad 19 hr ago +6

Yeah, the truth is that "almost" typically means there are no damages to recover.

6

mido_sama 16 hr ago +4

This is stupid .. let ppl heal accident happens and we learn from it and write new laws/procedures so it doesn’t happen again.

4

SousaDawg 15 hr ago +4

There really needs to be a penalty for frivolous bullshit like this

4

Shoot_from_the_Quip 12 hr ago +5

Loving all the "expert" commentary from people who have never set foot on a set.

5

Lonely_Noyaaa 19 hr ago +8

The gaffer suing him was standing just a few feet away and heard the gun go off. He's not suing because he got hit, he's suing because watching a coworker get killed right in front of you is a kind of trauma you don't just walk away from.

8

ERedfieldh 11 hr ago +2

So he should sue the person who left live rounds in the gun.

2

Cranberryoftheorient 7 hr ago +2

I wont speak to this case in particular, but civil does have a lower burden of proof than criminal

2

ncc74656m 18 hr ago +4

Considering that the attempted prosecution of Baldwin was such a shitshow because an idiotic prosecutor (shocker!) wanting to make a name for themselves (BIGGER shock) completely bungled things from start to finish, and we may never know real facts about Baldwin's actual involvement. I still haven't heard concretely if Baldwin even knew that they were using live ammo in that weapon outside of the controlled purposes of filming, nor any other evidence that relates to the matter leading up to the shooting. I'm with others, it was the armorer's responsibility to either not have live ammo on set for that weapon, or ensure that it was all properly locked up whenever not explicitly required. It was their responsibility to check and monitor the weapon and all ammunition, live or otherwise, prior to it being touched by anyone other than themselves each and every time. It was their responsibility to train Baldwin (no matter how many times he's used weapons on prior films and TV) and monitor him and the other actors from start to finish. It was also the responsibility of all of the senior members of the crew to ensure that no one was ever in the line of fire of the weapon, live or not, because we have seen exactly what happens with that on more than one occasion.

4

ahazred8vt 12 hr ago +3

> it was the armorer's responsibility to either not have live ammo on set Correct. The armorer only had boxes of prop ammo on set. They were made by a prop ammo company. All the prop ammo had a special 'dummy ammo' mark stamped in the brass case. The prop ammo company's boxes of prop ammo contained several dummy-marked rounds that had gunpowder. The live round in the gun had the prop ammo company's 'dummy ammo' mark stamped on it, exactly like the real dummy ammo. The live round came from the prop ammo company.

3

bananamussel 19 hr ago +5

why were there bullets on the set?

5

Secret_Account07 18 hr ago +5

I’m sorry but this is why people hate the American justice system This isn’t the family of the woman killed…I’d at least understand that. This is someone on set who suffered emotional damage. So okay, they are doing it for the right reasons so they’ll likely donate the money to the family of the woman killed right? Oh wait they just want a payday? Imagine that

5

Development-Feisty 15 hr ago +3

Yes imagine wanting a payday because your coworker was killed in front of you because the contracted safety procedures were not followed

3

Suns_In_420 19 hr ago +4

Another day, another out of control judiciary system.

4

RecordFirst1055 19 hr ago +3

In totally unrelated news, He use to troll Trump rather effectively.

3

clashrendar 18 hr ago +3

Anyone who has trolled Trump and has even the slightest hint of a skeleton in their closet (or out in the open) is having this happen to them - along with massive legal bills. I don't think it's a coincidence that this keeps getting brought back up.

3

Silverleaf96 17 hr ago +2

He's not legally responsible, how can this even go to court

2

Development-Feisty 15 hr ago +6

Alec Baldwin agreed to in writing contractual safety obligations before the handling of a firearm Those obligations included safety barriers, only accepting a firearm from one specific crew member, and safety meetings before firearms are brought to set Alec Baldwin knew he was required to follow the safety procedures and shows instead to act in a way that was unsafe which led to the death of a coworker Many people on set knew what Alec Baldwin was doing was negligent but did not have the power to stop him Alec Baldwin made a choice to dismantle safety procedures in order to save money but also because he felt like they shouldn’t apply to him. He treated guns like toys and killed someone and has still not taken responsibility for his actions

6

Silverleaf96 14 hr ago +6

All this is false the armour is 💯 liable in 48 states that's how it works

6

FrogsJumpFromPussy 16 hr ago +2

Seems to have zero merits.

2

Whompa 18 hr ago +2

Still don’t get why we’re brandishing any firearm capable of accidental murder while playing adult make believe. Its 2026. You don’t need props that do real damage.

2

Development-Feisty 15 hr ago +2

You’re allowed to do it under very specific safety protocols which were not followed For this particular case the most important one is the use of safety shields even when a gun has no bullets at all This production decided to ignore its contractual responsibilities and that is why someone died on set Alec Baldwin had full knowledge that the production was not following agreed-upon written safety procedures and still handled a deadly weapon in a manner likely to cause death

2

Feisty_Dirt4191 19 hr ago

I’ve never heard a good answer to the question: why the f*** was it a real gun? Why the f*** was it loaded with live ammo?

0

LordShnooky 18 hr ago +6

Real guns are used because they look real. Live rounds should never be on a film set; that's where someone clearly fucked up, but no one can say for sure who. Two people cleared the gun before it was handed to Baldwin, as it should be. Both or one of them, unclear still, fucked up.

6

Development-Feisty 15 hr ago +3

Because the person in charge of the guns wasn’t on set that day, wasn’t even under contract, she was actually under a completely different contract Somebody went into her area and took a weapon off the table Alec Baldwin knew that the person responsible for the weapons was not on set that day and was not the person handing him the weapon Alec Baldwin knew that a safety meeting was required before weapons could be handled but no safety meeting was held that day Alec Baldwin knew that even if a weapon was supposedly not loaded safety barriers were required by the films contract with its employees before a firearm could be handled and ignored that contractual obligation All of these barriers were created to keep the handling a firearm safe and prevent the death others coworkers but he didn’t care cause he wanted to get the scene shot quickly and cheaply

3

Alec Baldwin to face civil trial over alleged negligence in ‘Rust’ shooting, judge rules

💬 Send a Message

196 Comments