Another Reason Getting a Permit is Responsible Film-making Thread

Doc Bernard

Doc Bernard

Indie Arms Member
[h=5]http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nat...e-launcher-hoax-test-police-article-1.1169360[/h]Another film-maker, thinking they can just shoot anything Guerrila style. I don't know the guy personally, but know people that know him. And according to them, he was of the mind that permits were a waste of time. Well, now, I bet he has changed his mind a bit.

Kudos to Law Enforcement for not shooting this kid.

People, permits are there to protect you, not just pay money.
 
Don't see how you can drag permits into that debacle. That was just an ignorant thing to do and the point was for nobody to know about it before hand. If he had a permit the whole point of his experiment would have been lost.
 
Doc Bernard said:
Another film-maker, thinking they can just shoot anything Guerrila style. I don't know the guy personally, but know people that know him. And according to them, he was of the mind that permits were a waste of time. Well, now, I bet he has changed his mind a bit.
Click to expand...

Not that I disagree with your premise, Doc, but this case doesn't seem to have anything to do with it. The point of the entire video was to time police response...a very stupid idea in the first place, but one that's not going to be helped if you contact the police beforehand and go, "I'm shooting a movie testing the response time of the police to an obvious terrorist presence tomorrow afternoon starting at 1:30pm."
 
There is a back-story to this. The guy IS a film-maker in AZ. Always blew-off the permit process, from what I have been told. Think of it as "fruit of the vine".
 
Yep, Terry, that was part of the discussion, too. This was irresponsibility on a whole new level.

This story is going to follow him for a long time. And could seriously cast a pall on any sort of job/gig he tries to get in the future, film-making or otherwise. Lack of Common Sense is a disqualifier for any job requiring it, in my book.

As to the notion having a permit would have destroyed what he was trying to affect here.....I disagree. If he had done his homework and gotten city government involved, such as Councilpeople, or the Mayor, and explained what he was trying to do, he might have gotten a favorable look at it.

But, no, he decided to do this on his own, because he knew better than everyone else. (that guerilla-shooter mentality thing I was talking about). Not only could he have gotten killed or his nephew killed, it endangered the entire public around them and wasted the time of the Police Department.
 
Last edited:
In my community the actor most likely would have been dropped before law enforcement arrived. I can't believe Turley was so callous as to put his actor at risk, let alone his nephew.
 
i kept seeing this story on the news (i live in phoenix) but always started doing other things before the story actually aired. I had no idea it was a film thing.

And as an AZ resident, i'm very surprised an armed citizen didn't shoot him.
 
Its a stupid test; but the test specifically requires that no permit be applied for (otherwise the authorities would know about it, thus defeating the point of the test). This is less a case of guerrilla filmmaking, and more a jackass style stunt.

Its quite common for newspapers to attempt to test security by smuggling 'bombs' into airports and the like, in an attempt to see if they can get through without being stopped. A device was successfully smuggled into the 2012 Olympic Park in London by The Sun. Obviously for these types of stunts a permit would defeat the purpose of the test.
 
simonpwood said:
Its a stupid test; but the test specifically requires that no permit be applied for (otherwise the authorities would know about it, thus defeating the point of the test). This is less a case of guerrilla filmmaking, and more a jackass style stunt.
Click to expand...
+1
 
Even if he had filed a permit and the police department knew about and approved it, everybody on the street his nephew was pointing the grenade launcher at would not know about the permit and they still would have been calling 911. Obviously the police would not approve the permit in the first place
 
Oh boy. What in the world does this story have to do with permits? Boggle... this is just bizarre.

And we've hashed and re-hashed the permit question here forever (though it has nothing to do with this story). I wonder who in their right mind would say "sure, I can get a permit, but I won't, so there!" - that's a no-brainer... nobody with an IQ above room temperature would refuse to get a permit s/he can realistically obtain... why even discuss that? No, the only discussion is what do you do if you cannot for some reason get a permit. Do you just not do the shoot? Do you go ahead anyway without? Well, you can't answer that question hypothetically - it all depends on the situation, your options, your understanding of the possible dangers, your ability to control the parameters of the shoot, and your tolerance for risk. There is no stock answer - for some situations and for some people it will be a go-ahead, for others not. I'm not sure what we learn from this abstractly without discussing the very specific case. Blanket rules I guess - if you have a blanket rule, "never without a permit", well, that's that. Others say "depends" - there would be a heck of a lot fewer films and filmmakers if everybody adhered to the rule "never without a permit", just as there will always be tragic events when a jacka$$ overestimates their own competence and breaks the rules.

Bottom line re the article: nothing to see here, move along...
 
Personally, I don't believe his story that he was just "testing police response times." I think that's just his after-the-fact excuse for why he didn't get a permit. I believe the purpose of his video was to get shots of the "funny" reactions of people driving by who suddenly see a supposed terrorist pointing a weapon at them. He thought it would be a big laugh, and now he's backpedaling like crazy to make it sound like something semi-legit. If all he wanted to do was test police response times, there are easier ways -- like calling in a fake bomb threat or robbery call. (Which would also be stupid.)
 
simonpwood said:
Its a stupid test; but the test specifically requires that no permit be applied for (otherwise the authorities would know about it, thus defeating the point of the test). This is less a case of guerrilla filmmaking, and more a jackass style stunt.

Its quite common for newspapers to attempt to test security by smuggling 'bombs' into airports and the like, in an attempt to see if they can get through without being stopped. A device was successfully smuggled into the 2012 Olympic Park in London by The Sun. Obviously for these types of stunts a permit would defeat the purpose of the test.
Click to expand...

+1! it has nothing to do with permits. I participated in tests about TSA security but the TV station´s law dept. made sure to tell us where the lines are drawn. Putting your decoy in such a risk is more than stupid! He could have gotten shot!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top