Ask For Forgiveness... Not For Permission?

Status
Not open for further replies.
HDkilledFILM. said:
Get permits, or take the risk, morality is subjective to each individual and situation.
Click to expand...

Ethics are not subjective. Right and wrong are absolutes. Jeopardizing the safety and property of others without their permission, all for the sake of a bit of footage for a video or movie, is wrong. There is no legitimate justification for doing so.
 
OldCorpse said:
Have you considered the very real possibility that a property owner could stumble on you trespassing on their "abandoned" property and simply shoot you and your crew dead? Signed waivers might make you feel better, but they won't make you bulletproof.


Have you considered that as you walk along a street, a crazed man might stab you in the neck, killing you? Life is risk. <snip>
Click to expand...

Life - long life, anyway - is largely a matter of wise moderation of risk. Is it worth the risks of braving traffic in order to reach my office? By what route? Car or motorcycle? Aggressively or cautiously? The whole life is risk thing put so simply kind of suggests that there's no distinction between rationally considered and balanced risks i.e. requirements and rewards of career against very small chance of a traffic accident and, well, what I'd describe as not-so-well considered, i.e. trespassing for just *that* singular exact particular old barn in the shot against the odds of encountering unknown barbed wire, feral dogs, uncovered wells, collapsing floors, poisonous snakes, or crazed reclusive farmer who will scythe your head off and wear your skin for a poncho.
 
David W. Richardson said:
Ethics are not subjective. Right and wrong are absolutes. Jeopardizing the safety and property of others without their permission, all for the sake of a bit of footage for a video or movie, is wrong. There is no legitimate justification for doing so.
Click to expand...
So I guess John Cassavetes' estate, Scorsese, Christopher Nolan, Spike Lee, Robert Rodríguez, Sam Raimi, Kevin Smith and the gang should what...return the money they've made?
After all, their careers were primed & fueled by doing just that.⇈
 
The whole life is risk thing put so simply kind of suggests that there's no distinction between rationally considered and balanced risks

I think all my posts here suggest the exact opposite - that one needs to consider all risks in a carefully calibrated manner. "All life is risk" means exactly what it states - risk is omnipresent. Our job is to assess it, since we can't avoid it down to zero. We minimize risk in direct proportion to the costs. We don't take billion dollar policies against being hit by a meteorite, even though that risk exists, because it doesn't pass the cost vs risk test. Ultimately, as I've maintained all along, you must use your own judgment. Some people are better at managing risk, and some worse - that's life. Even in your very example of driving to work - the scenario may be exactly the same, but a worse driver will still have higher risk than a better driver, so you must adjust for that as well. Which is why I thought it missed the point to ask a question as general as "is it better to ask for forgiveness than permission", because we can't give a sensible answer here, other than "depends". This is pretty commonsensical. The only reason I even felt impelled to post in this thread, is because of the absurd choir of voices "always permission" - it's patently wrong blanket statement that hasn't got a ghost of a chance of being right - it's a reflexive knee-jerk reaction, which fails in the real world. The real world is complicated. You can't ask such questions abstractly and expect useful answers. Give us specifics of a situation, and then we can talk and agree or disagree. But always and everywhere - use your best judgment.
 
I'm just saying that each person has different views on what is right and what is wrong. It's pointless to debate this.
 
CallaghanFilms said:
I don't really have a pony in this race...
I just am not a fan of absolutes.
Click to expand...

I can see you're absolutely not.

Like it or not, there is good and bad -- right and wrong. Just because some famous folks got away with it doesn't make it right. Are you telling me they wouldn't have been successful if they HADN'T done ethically wrong things? I find that very hard to believe.
 
OldCorpse said:
... the absurd choir of voices "always permission" - it's patently wrong blanket statement that hasn't got a ghost of a chance of being right - it's a reflexive knee-jerk reaction, which fails in the real world.
Click to expand...

The reaction that makes no sense in the real world is "sometimes it's okay to violate another person's rights to get that shot you just HAVE to have."
 
TwistedLincoln said:
Have you considered the very real possibility that a property owner could stumble on you trespassing on their "abandoned" property and simply shoot you and your crew dead? Signed waivers might make you feel better, but they won't make you bulletproof.
Click to expand...

I know if I found someone on my property with cameras, I'm going to ask them what they're doing. If I found someone on my property with cameras and explosives of any sort, they're staring down the barrel of my shotgun (and wetting themselves if I still owned an AR15). Finding adult strangers in on your property with various explosives, one can potentially reasonably expect a worst case scenario... arson... and in the state of Washington, someone attempting arson is justification to use deadly force. Now, I don't own an abandoned industrial complex, and if I stumbled across individuals setting off those explosives well away from any building and it was obvious that they weren't trying to burn my place down, the arson justification goes way down. But every state is different, and every property owner is different... and will react differently to strangers making various things go boom on their property.

OldCorpse said:
Have you considered that as you walk along a street, a crazed man might stab you in the neck, killing you?
Click to expand...

The risk of your scenario is pretty low due to it's rarity and the fact you aren't doing anything to bring it upon yourself. The risk of getting shot by a property owner because he thinks you're trying to burn stuff down because you're sneaking around his property with explosives is substantially higher.
 
David W. Richardson said:
I can see you're absolutely not.

Like it or not, there is good and bad -- right and wrong. Just because some famous folks got away with it doesn't make it right. Are you telling me they wouldn't have been successful if they HADN'T done ethically wrong things? I find that very hard to believe.
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. That is what I'm telling you.

Could one or two of 'em hypothetically have found another path?
Maybe, but I'm for one glad they "cheated";
otherwise it could've been (likewise hypothetically) Kevin Smith,
and not Scorsese, that found another "in"...
 
David W. Richardson said:
That is why we HAVE laws -- because some people think it's perfectly okay to take what they want, if they can justify it to themselves.
Click to expand...

Right, but people will choose to take the risk or not. People are either going to choose right or wrong and no one will be able to make the choice for them. I don't see what the fuss is about so I'll drop out of this thread and go back to editing, I was just trying to calm things down.
 
It should go without saying, but sometimes
Right ≠ Legal
Wrong ≠ Illegal

Somehow this thread went from safety/liabilities to ethics/morality.



Man, why did I jump in to this one??
doh.gif
 
Talk to me about what is ethical and moral and right when it's YOUR property invaded by people you don't know, who are doing things you know nothing about, and are firing off dangerous explosives.

Some people will go to great lengths to justify behaviors like this. This is how people let themselves think it's alright to steal software, music, movies, etc. To those who are going to do it anyway, go ahead -- you think the world should step aside for you. You don't want people violating your space or stealing your stuff, but you justify doing the same to others for your own purposes.

I will continue to play by the rules, do the right thing, and respect the laws as well as the rights of others. I will never employ or work with anyone who believes the way some here have said they believe. If I fail and the cheaters and criminals succeed, then so be it. This is truly a foul and corrupt business if it reveres its worst elements.
 
Mike Harvey said:
I know if I found someone on my property with cameras, I'm going to ask them what they're doing. If I found someone on my property with cameras and explosives of any sort, they're staring down the barrel of my shotgun (and wetting themselves if I still owned an AR15). Finding adult strangers in on your property with various explosives, one can potentially reasonably expect a worst case scenario... arson... and in the state of Washington, someone attempting arson is justification to use deadly force. Now, I don't own an abandoned industrial complex, and if I stumbled across individuals setting off those explosives well away from any building and it was obvious that they weren't trying to burn my place down, the arson justification goes way down. But every state is different, and every property owner is different... and will react differently to strangers making various things go boom on their property.



The risk of your scenario is pretty low due to it's rarity and the fact you aren't doing anything to bring it upon yourself. The risk of getting shot by a property owner because he thinks you're trying to burn stuff down because you're sneaking around his property with explosives is substantially higher.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh, someone else sees the additional wrinkle in the OP's question. This is not just about jumping a fence to shoot some video. This is about trespassing AND using explosives at the same time. I wonder if it's just me, Mike and David that are seeing the real question and concern here?

Frankly if the OP had just said he was going to shoot his film on property he didn't have permission, I would have said "Not a wise move" and moved on. But he is going to be filming there and using pyrotechnics around an uninsured cast and crew with no permits, not knowing what the heck he is doing with them. This goes beyond nuances of legal terminology and morality. And anyone not outright warning him against such actions does not have the OP's and his cast/crew's safety in the front of their minds and arguments. He is planning on walking a tightrope with both hands tied behind his back and one busted leg, figuratively speaking.

OldCorpse, I actually understand your position on this, in a broad sense. And actually agree in that same broad sense, without factoring in the other qualifying aspect of the original question. In each of your arguments, you are leaving out the exorbitant risk and liability the OP is adding to the debate. Explosives. If you factor in that, are you going to generically advise the OP the same way? Despite your stating otherwise, the general feel I get is that you are saying "Hey, everything in life is a risk". But someone has laid out a question with some specifics. Debating ethical philosophies may not be the best advice here.

I don't know who you are, but you have the sound of an attorney or a law student. So, I will pose the question to you hypothetically, as if we are in a mock trial: What criminal or civil liability does your defendant incur, if he/she clearly and knowingly trespasses on property they do not have the right or ethical reasoning to, injures a person with explosives or causes serious property damage while engaging in an act that in every aspect of their explanation is illegal, and not permitted, by nature, spirit and definition of the law? And that person has acknowledged the plan to commit the criminal act prior to doing it, on a public forum (pre-meditated, and fruit of the vine, because any other liable action, as a result of and following the initial illegal act makes the defendant culpable for all resulting and following damages related to the initial act). The prosecution has the transcripts of this thread. What is your argument in defense? Are there mitigating circumstances?

This has turned into a debate over perception of morality and an ethereal one at that. We are ignoring the elephant in the kitchen on this one, people. Untrained individuals messing with pyro and risking the lives and freedoms of others simply for a bit of video.
 
Last edited:
David W. Richardson said:
Ethics are not subjective. Right and wrong are absolutes. Jeopardizing the safety and property of others without their permission, all for the sake of a bit of footage for a video or movie, is wrong. There is no legitimate justification for doing so.
Click to expand...

Not so sure of that one, but legalities are absolutes. Otherwise we would have no reason for the laws. And to bring it back on point, the acts suggested in the original post are illegal.
 
I guess it's time for this thread to step back from the moral ponderings and legal statements and just note that the idea behind what the original poster wish to do is really, really stupid and foolhardy and should not be encouraged.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top