Alec Baldwin Says the People Suing Over Him Shooting a Co-Worker are Only Trying to 'Get Money'

People - Multiple outlets, including The Hollywood Reporter and CNN, report that [Alec] Baldwin — who accidentally misfired a prop gun on the set of the Western film Rust last October, resulting in the death of cinematographer Halyna Hutchins — cited "deep-pocket litigants" on Saturday while speaking at the Boulder International Film Festival in Colorado. ...

"What you have is a certain group of people, litigants and whatever, on whatever side, who their attitude is, 'Well, the people who likely seem negligent have no money and the people who have money are not negligent,' " the actor continued, as seen in video footage shared by CNN.

" 'But we're not gonna let that stop us from doing what we need to do in terms of litigation,' " Baldwin added. "Why sue people if you're not going to get money? That's what you're doing it for." ...

Last month, Halyna's husband Matthew Hutchins filed a complaint on behalf of himself and the couple's 9-year-old son Andros, claiming Baldwin "recklessly shot and killed Halyna Hutchins on the set of the movie Rust."

Congratulations to Alec Baldwin, first of all, for figuring out at the age of 63 how lawsuits work. That if say, the breadwinner in a family gets t-boned at an intersection by a van delivering goods from the largest retailer in North America, the survivors can try to recover that loss of income by suing the driver making 15 bucks an hour, or go after the insanely huge company with the impossible corporate assets and insurance that had him plowing through an intersection while pissing into a bottle. And anyone who doesn't want to go broke or who doesn't have some weird grudge against minimum wage workers will choose the more lucrative option. 

And by the same token, the family of a woman who was shot to death - accidentally - on a movie set could chose to sue the prop person. Or the key grip, the caterer, the guy who slams the black and white bar down on that board and says, "Take 1!" or the intern assigned to bring coffee to the star's trailer. But your typical person trying to cope with the loss of a loved one, as well as their earning potential, will go for the production company and the millionaire producer 10 out of 10 times. Good on Baldwin for discovering that now that he finds himself on the pointed end of the legal spear. 

But the larger point is that Baldwin is clearly doing himself no favors here. There's not an attorney not worthy of being disbarred who wouldn't tell his client to shut up in this situation. To skip panel discussions at the Boulder International Film Festival altogether. But if you must take part, maybe if you feel professionally your career depends on the support of the pretentious, Pinot Grigio-sipping.  elitist twats who go to international cinephile circle jerks in Colorado, then when the inevitable questions come, just dummy up. It's not hard to do. A simple, "I'd love to tell my side of the story, but you'll have to respect the fact that I can't discuss a matter that's under litigation." You might have to repeat it a couple of times, but eventually you can pivot back to telling tales of what an honor it was to learn from Jack Lemmon and Al Pacino on the set of "Glengarry" and do your Sean Connery voice. 

But he just can't help himself. And all this yammering on is going to make it worse for him. Any civil jury who hears this is going to make up of people will be a self-selecting group. Made up of the ordinary schmoes who don't have the power and influence to get out of jury duty. They'll certainly sympathize with a cinemaphotographer over the superstar. And they're not going to not appreciate hearing a Hollywood legend talk about the family of the victim like they're money-hungry opportunists. 

Everyone involved in a criminal investigation is guaranteed by law the right to remain silent. Alec Baldwin is just one of those people who can't bring himself to exercise it.