Alec Baldwin sued for $25 million by family of fallen US Marine for defamation of character


CHEYENNE, WY – The family of a U.S. Marine killed in a suicide bombing in Afghanistan over the summer has filed a $25 million lawsuit against actor Alec Baldwin for allegedly mislabeling his sister as a participant in the Capitol riot Jan. 6, 2021.

The 63-year-old actor has been named in a lawsuit alleging defamation, invasion of privacy, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress, according to court documents.

Lance Cpl. Rylee McCollum, 20, was among the 13 U.S. service members killed in the attack at Kabul Airport during the disastrous pullout of American troops by the Biden administration on August 26 as troops withdrew from Afghanistan.

According to the suit, Baldwin sent the McCollum family a donation of $5,000 following McCollum’s death. But on January 3, McCollum’s sister posted a photo of herself to Instagram on January 6 at the Washington Monument.

Baldwin reportedly saw the post and began sending direct messages to McCollum’s sister, Roice accusing her of taking part in the attack on the Capitol. The suit states she told Baldwin she did not storm the Capitol, had already been interviewed by the FBI, and had been cleared of any wrongdoing.

Although she posed for the photo on the day of the insurrection and admitted she was present to protest the vote certification of the 2020 presidential election, the suit said she did not take part in the attack on the Capitol.

The lawsuit reads:

“During the rioting, she was stuck in place outside the Capitol Building next to multiple police officers for hours after the rioting began due to the fact that so many people were around her and the area had been locked down.

“Later, a neighbor who was unhappy that Roice attended the demonstration turned her into the authorities.”

Alec Baldwin sued for  million by family of fallen US Marine for defamation of character

The lawsuit goes on to say Roice and Baldwin exchanged direct messages about her presence in Washington, D.C., on that day. In one, Baldwin labeled her a “rioter.”

In the messages, Baldwin wrote:

“When I sent the $ (money) for your late brother, out of real respect for his service to this country, I didn’t know you were a January 6th rioter.”

Roice responded to the message defending herself against the accusations:

“Protesting is perfectly legal in the country, and I’ve already had my sit down with the FBI. Thanks, have a nice day!”

Baldwin then blasted the young woman, accusing her of involvement in the death of a police officer, damage of government property, and more:

“I don’t think so. Your activities resulted in the unlawful destruction of government property, the death of a law enforcement officer, an assault on the certification of the presidential election. I reposted your photo. Good luck.”

Baldwin reposted the photo on Instagram, calling Roice “an insurrectionist” in the caption. The post has since been deleted.

The lawsuit claims that with his 2.4 million followers, Baldwin should have known better than to republish the sister’s post. The court documents read:

“Baldwin’s conduct was negligent and reckless, as he should have known that making the allegations, he did against plaintiffs to his millions of followers would cause plaintiffs harm.

“Baldwin’s comments were false, outrageous, defamatory, irresponsible, vindictive, and caused – and continue to cause — plaintiffs’ severe emotional distress.

Instead of being able to focus on grieving LCPL McCollum’s death and raising his newborn daughter, plaintiffs and their family are now fearful for their lives.”

A summons has been issued for the avtor in U.S. District Court in Wyoming. Baldwin has 21 days to respond to the suit after being served. If he does not, judgment by default will be issued against him and he would owe the family $25 million.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity
Alec Baldwin claims he didn’t pull the trigger, but sheriff investigating the case says guns don’t fire on their own

December 4, 2021

SANTA FE, NM – Alec Baldwin recently did a television interview in which he admits to holding the gun that killed one person and injured another, but now claims he never pulled the trigger.

The sheriff whose detectives are working the investigation came out and said what everyone else should already know, guns do not fire on their own.

On October 21st, there is no dispute that Baldwin was on the ill-fated movie set for “Rust,” a country western movie with a gun in his hand.

There is also no dispute that the gun that was in Baldwin’s hand fired, killing cinematographer Halyna Hutchins and injuring film director Joel Souza.

However, now, at least according to Baldwin, there is a dispute as to whether the gun somehow fired itself or he pulled the trigger.

Baldwin, who must have ignored his attorney’s advice, appeared on a televised interview about the incident that day in Santa Fe.

He spoke to ABC host, George Stephanopoulos, who asked him what occurred that morning, and if he pulled the trigger while the gun was pointed in a person’s direction. Baldwin’s response:

“No, no, no, no, I would never point a gun at anyone and pull the trigger at them, never.”

While it appears no one believes that Baldwin actually intended to shoot, let alone kill anyone, it is difficult to believe that the gun would just fire on its own while he was holding it. Santa Fe County Sheriff Adan Mendoza expressed his doubts to Fox News Digital.

He said:

“Guns don’t just go off. So whatever needs to happen to manipulate the firearm, he did that and it was in his hands.”

The Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office noted that they are waiting for results from the FBI who is assisting in this case by processing the firearm that was fired.

They are hoping the FBI will be able to advise whether the trigger was pulled or was capable of being manipulated in such a way to cause it to fire.

There may be some argument that the hammer had already been pulled back on the .45 Colt revolver by someone on the set prior to the shooting.

According to the fourth search warrant that was conducted by the Sheriff’s Office, the set armorer, Hannah Gutierrez Reed, noted that this was a possibility. According to the search warrant, Reed said:

“We had the gun the whole time before that and nothing happened, and I wasn’t in there, and they weren’t even supposed to be pulling the hammer back.”

Reed’s description is disputed by Baldwin who described the incident just before the shooting.

In the interview, he said that he and Hutchins were trying to find the best angle with the gun for an upcoming scene in which he never pulls the trigger. However, and most importantly, Baldwin said that he was only supposed to cock the gun which contradicts what Reed’s account.

Fox News spoke to armorer Bryan Carpenter about the possibility of the gun firing without the trigger being pulled. His analysis on the issue was that it would be very rare for something like that to occur. He said:

“In order to make it fire, you have to put your thumb up onto the hammer, cock the hammer all the way back, and then as the hammer is completely cocked back, then you pull the trigger and then the gun fires. So that’s very important because that gun had to have two step process to fire. It had to be cocked and the trigger pulled to fire.”

Carpenter went on to explain that once the hammer is pulled back, the trigger pull is minimal. That means that it would be easy to fire the gun without applying a lot of pressure to the trigger. He said:

“Once you cock the hammer back on one of those old west guns, it doesn’t take a lot to set that trigger off. You know, they’re very light triggers.”

Michael Corrie, a film and prop historian, also spoke to Fox about the possibility of the gun being fired without pulling the trigger. Corrie said the only way something like that could occur is if there had been some type of mechanical failure with the gun. He noted:

“The hammer needs to be fully locked to the rear for the weapon to function. Which necessitates manual operation of the weapon. Barring an as of yet unknown mechanical failure, this weapon did not fire itself…For the hammer to travel forward at all, the trigger has to be depressed…unless some major mechanical failure takes place.” 

Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today?  With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.  

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing!  (See image below.)  Thanks for being a part of the LET family!
Facebook Follow First
Submit a Correction
Related Posts