1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

SWAT call out on movie set

Discussion in 'Legal' started by ProficientRifleman, Jun 20, 2006.

  1. ProficientRifleman

    ProficientRifleman Well-Known Member

    This is from the Greeley Tribune.

  2. rmgill

    rmgill Well-Known Member

    Naturally, charges HAD to be filed against someone. :scrutiny:
  3. Fly320s

    Fly320s Well-Known Member

    I wonder if there were cameras and lighting equipment on the set. If so, that could be considered a clue.
  4. This is the problem with a militarized police force. In the old days, a couple of squad cars would have responded, approached, perhaps with hands on the their holstered weapons, and asked some questions. Once the reality of the situation was determined, they'd have bid them a good afternoon, and that would have been the end of it, but because we have SWAT teams raring for some action, we have to send them in whenever there's any question of guns involved, and if you send them in, everybody has to be on the ground, nose in the dirt, and someone has to get charged with something. It's par for the course in a police state.
  5. ProficientRifleman

    ProficientRifleman Well-Known Member


    That was the point of my post. Now, I wasn't there...but whatcha wanna bet someone on the set made a remark like "This was rediculous...we're making a movie."

    Handcuffed and prone while they bring out a mobile lab and test corn syrup?

    But hey, someone HAD to be charged with SOMETHING!
  6. Someone Had To Be Charged With Something...

    ...to cover their butts, most likely.

    In such a scenario, the SWAT team and anyone who sent the SWAT team could be charged with false arrest, harassment, and probably a hundred other rights violations. The permit issuing authority could be charged as well. Wouldn't it be prudent to inform law enforcement that a movie was being filmed and that a "Park Permit" had been issued? Seems to me, that should have been in the "Shift Briefing", or what ever you call it when the cops show up for work and the "sarge" tells them what's going on.

    File this in the "Bureaucrat SNAFU" file.


    One should only need a gun to protect one's self and family, not a squad of police and an army of lawyers!
  7. Sindawe

    Sindawe Well-Known Member

    Dang, ProficientRifleman beat me to posting. :neener:

    Responding to a call about a possible bad situation in a park is well and good. Exactly the kind of thing that is part of a cop's job. Writing up a citation as CYA when you've made a fool of yourselves is not.
  8. Ira Aten

    Ira Aten member

    I'm suprized the excuse wasn't "....Well, a lot of criminals film their murders, and naturally we thought the film crew was an elite team of serial killers!"
  9. Henry Bowman

    Henry Bowman Senior Member

    There is also at least half a chance that Borden chose to be a disorderly @$$.
  10. P99waltherP99

    P99waltherP99 Active Member

    Wow it was so close

    Im glad that the actors were not doing a shootout scene or anything like that becuase that would have been verry messy. They probabaly wouldnt need any fake blood either after what would have happened.

    This is a typical thing i almost always expect from law enforcement. OVER REACTION! I agree that there are times when "excessive force is necessary," but a lot of times you will see things like this.....

    I was at the airport, this old guy had one of those WW2 hats on and could hardly walk. His wife was with him and they both got "randomly searched."
    They made him hold out his hands for a long time, and it was clear that this 85+ year old man was having trouble doing that and scolded him about not being able to stand still. ***?!!!!?!?!?!?!?!

    As for random checks, I have always been "RANDOMLY SELECTED" for a screening even though I was able to produce dog tags and a military ID card.

    I guess in a police state they will always tell you that you must sacrifice a little privacy and freedom for security. It may be ok at this point, but what if it gets worse..........
  11. buzz_knox

    buzz_knox Well-Known Member

    By the stage he would have had the opportunity to be disorderly, the proper charge would have been resisting arrest/assaulting a police officer.

    Disorderly conduct is like public intoxication: a catch all phrase used when nothing else would work but the cop wants to send you a message.
  12. Justin

    Justin Moderator Staff Member

    FWIW, Denver has a rather active independent film culture.

    From the look of their website they shoot on video. There are location stills from this production here.

    Indie digital film making is yet another example of good old Yankee ingenuity.
  13. NineseveN

    NineseveN member

    You can't blame the police for responding, they did as they should have there.

    You can't blame them for sending in the special tactics team, it was reportedly a hostage situation.

    You can't blame them for not knowing it was a movie set, remember, we're talking a small independent movie set, which doesn't necessarily look as much like a movie set as most would think...it could have appeared that the hostage taker was being filmed with a personal digital camera and some industrial work lights by accomplices of his (perhaps for ransom or whatever).

    However, within 5 seconds of the suspects claiming that they were shooting a movie, and immediately after they found that the so-called "gun" was rubber, plastic or a prop and that the group had a permit to film there, don't you think that should have given them a clue?

    If they were in compliance with the permit to film there, no charges should have been filed and the cops should have apologized instead of being jerks about it. Now, there are some things that we don't know about the incident specifically, so we're all kinda speculating...but on the surface, it looks like it was bad call to file charges...they should have apologized and went on their way.
    Last edited: Jun 20, 2006
  14. Oldtimer

    Oldtimer Well-Known Member

    HMM! I can sort of "read between the lines" on this incident! Consider the FACTS that this was NOT a major movie production company, but an "independent", and it was a "low budget" film. No "big name" actors? "Low budget", as in filming with ordinary video cameras? They probably didn't have the "usual" truck/trailer movie production vehicles, no "star" trailers, no catering trucks, and PROBABLY not any off-duty or retired police officers working as "security agents"! Their "low budget" probably consisted of MAYBE getting all of the necessary permits, but MOST LIKELY they failed to notify the local police agency of their "location shoot". Sort of a big "OOPS!" on both sides of this!

    Many years ago, while I was on-duty, my partner and I happened upon a "location" movie shoot that was located VERY close to a high crime rate, gang- and drug-infested area within our assigned patrol region. The spot was almost out of view, but the big truck/trailers, catering trucks, and posted off-duty or retired police officers providing security were CLEARLY noticeable. "Any big names in this movie?", my partner asked one of the posted off-duty officers. "Oh, just Arnold!", he replied.
    Yep, there was Arnold Schwarzenegger, as a Russian police detective in the movie "Red Heat"! When the director stopped the action and everyone took a break, we managed to get up to where Arnold was, and shook his hand. "I respect you men! My father was a police officer!", he politely exclaimed.

    UH, that movie production company had ALL of the necessary permits for their location shoot, had spent the money on hiring "security", AND had called the police station to let them know that there would be some "realistic" shooting sequences.

    Cancel SWAT!
  15. YellowLab

    YellowLab member

    NineSeven - the LEO's simply cannot do no wrong in your book, eh? It would have taken all of 5 seconds of OBSERVATION to gather what was going on. The crew had permits to be in the park, they did everything legally.

    But the coppers get to play cowboy and get thier adreniline rush.

    Since when did officer saftey override CITIZENS saftey? Then they hand out a summonds? The SWAT team is a bunch of retards. Evidently they checked thier common sense at the door.
  16. NineseveN

    NineseveN member


  17. NineseveN

    NineseveN member


  18. NineseveN

    NineseveN member

    Oldtimer had it, watch the video at that last link, they didn't have ther right permits. But still, was there really a need to cite them? I don't believe so.
  19. ProficientRifleman

    ProficientRifleman Well-Known Member

    I wonder how long they had "watched".

    He probably had beady eyes and a pointy head too...

    hmmmmm...interesting They caw the cameraman and that prevented them from shooting.

    Ain't it funny how often it happens, that when SWAT guys confiscate film from a scene of one of their "engagements", the film goes missing?

    By the way, what is accessory to disorderly conduct? If I was throwing water baloons at passing cars, that would be disorderly conduct. If I had a friend handing me the water baloons before I threw them, would that make him and accessory? Why wouldn't he be charged with disorderly conduct also? Maybe the acessory was just offering moral support. I guess we'll see in court.
  20. Husker1911

    Husker1911 Well-Known Member

    Plenty of blame to pass all around on this one. Note to movie director: Notify local law enforcement that you're conducting a movie shoot.

    Quote: Borden said deputies told him the only reason they didn't shoot him was because they saw a cameraman.
    "That was the only thing that prevented them from blowing me away," he said.

    If this is true, the SWAT team needs to assess their rules of engagement. Were these guys at Waco, too?

Share This Page