Boston hoaxer prankster hipster filmed cops handling “bomb,” said nothing

posted at 3:26 pm on February 6, 2007 by Allahpundit

Be outraged all you want. Obviously, you don’t know the first thing about videotape freelance art.

Surveillance cameras caught 27-year-old Peter Berdovsky videotaping officers removing what they thought was a possible bomb.

His lawyer, Walter Prince, said Tuesday: “Mr. Berdovsky didn’t do anything inappropriate.”

Prince said Berdovsky had received a call that morning from a friend who told him there was a bomb threat at the Sullivan Square transit station in Boston. He said Berdovsky grabbed his camera and headed out to the scene, unaware it involved one of the electronic devices that he and Sean Stevens, 28, had hung as part of a guerrilla advertising campaign for Turner Broadcasting, a division of Time Warner Inc.

“That’s what he does. He videotapes things. He’s a videotape freelance artist. He got a call that there was a bomb threat near his house and he went to tape it,” Prince said. “When he got there, he realized what was going on, and he went back to his apartment and called his employer, and they told him they would take care of it. That’s not an inappropriate response.”

Hey, remember when punks were cool?

berdovsky.jpg

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

RightWinged, thanks for keeping up the argument.

As you know, there is no debating with the self-absorbed, self-proclaimed ‘arm chair’ EOD experts who instantly know, from a 3rd hand report, that these devices were “harmless” and that all the precautions were overkill. They are Beavis and Butthead enshrined.

Bomb Doctor, you got it exactly right about “innocent looking” explosive devices and complacency.

Considering that there were *38* of these devices, and that nobody twigged to them (which meant their role as “guerrilla marketing” advertisments crapped out in Boston and in the other cities as an abysmal failure) until someone started making multiple calls to 911 about these “devices” — and then this little psychopathic f*cktard just happens to be there with his video camera — ought to be suspicious to anyone with half a brain.

I would not be surprised that when they analyze the tapes they are going to find more than one 911 call to be from the same person, and that if they dig hard enough, they might just find a connection between the callers and the “guerrilla marketing” firm.

And if they do, all you folks criticizing the Boston Police and Mayor for overreacting are going to be eating humble pie.

georgej on February 7, 2007 at 9:06 AM

And if they do, all you folks criticizing the Boston Police and Mayor for overreacting are going to be eating humble pie.

Their response has nothing to do with who made what calls…you’re taking the same ‘see, it was nothing’ after the fact argument that you don’t like and turning it into the ‘see, it was them’ after the fact argument.

James on February 7, 2007 at 9:54 AM

Ahhh…so the calls change the nature of the items and the appropriate response.

So, if I were to call in a couple of dozen newspaper racks….

Pablo on February 7, 2007 at 11:02 AM

This is one self-indulgent, creepy individual. Read a bit of his art project/journal. It’s full of gems like:

My mom and I slept in the same bed until I was a teenager.

And don’t miss his imitation of Jack Nicholson from The Shining. He hand writes the phrase “What do you want from me?” over and over for two pages.

He’s obviously narcissistic. Nearly all his art consists of self-portraits of one kind or another.

I look forward to forgetting him in the near future.

John on February 7, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Ahhh…so the calls change the nature of the items and the appropriate response.

No, the calls point to the existence of the items, not their nature. Only a trained technician can determine the true nature of an item in question. These items weren’t even noticed until the calls in question were made. The response to those items were appropriate due to the fact that these types of items are not normally found in the locations they were in. That makes them suspicious and therefor a possible danger to the public.

So, if I were to call in a couple of dozen newspaper racks….

You most likely see a similar response. You would also be guilty of making a false 911 call. Most states have made those types of false call illegal.

RedinBlueCounty on February 7, 2007 at 12:18 PM

This is what happens when commies become “running-dog capitalist pigs.”

Capitalism and marketing just does not compute right in their heads.

NTWR on February 7, 2007 at 12:56 PM

I look forward to forgetting him in the near future.

John on February 7, 2007 at 12:09 PM

Good luck. Not in this media age. He’ll be a star before long.

All Points Bulletin: If you see this man, contact the bomb squad immediately. Do not approach him and do not engage him. He is considered armed and dangerous.

If you see him leaving things around, secure the area and do not allow anyone to approach, or even to drive by within a half mile radius until the items have been identified and detonated by the authorities. Suspect is believed to be driving a small white truck with red and blue markings from the wrong side of the front seat. Use extreme caution.

Pablo on February 7, 2007 at 5:28 AM

If you put down the pipe for a second you’d realize that no one is saying to panic or overreact, so stop your strawman bs. But by the way, Britain was hit with letter bombs AGAIN TODAY, injuring 6.

Remember folks: if there’s an alert and it turns out to be harmless, then it’s a panic reaction. If the devices turn out to be real bombs and they go off, then the police SHOULD HAVE DONE SOMETHING!!!!

…and the bomb squads are psychic so they can know which is which. Oh wait, they can’t.

Patrick Chester on February 7, 2007 at 6:50 AM

Well said.

RightWinged on February 7, 2007 at 2:08 PM

But by the way, Britain was hit with letter bombs AGAIN TODAY, injuring 6.

Might I suggest a little emphasis on worrying about letters, then?

James on February 7, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Guys, it’s obvious that Pablo’s “cheese is off his cracker” on this issue, and I believe there are societal norms observed when dealing with people who have “lost it”. Trying to enlighten him could be considered cruel and unusual treatment.

csdeven on February 7, 2007 at 2:29 PM

Might I suggest a little emphasis on worrying about letters, then?

James on February 7, 2007 at 2:20 PM

Not really, because as the crowd who’s been blaming the police has said in all of their strawman building, we can’t be scared of everything and just hide in our houses. The problem is, we never claimed that was what should be done. We simply state the obvious, that the cops reacted properly to multiple individual 911 calls reporting suspicious devices.

The only reason I mention the letter bombs again, is because one of the biggest (yet stupidest) argments from the Boston Police haters here was that these devices “didn’t look like bombs”. The letter bombs have just been perfectly timed for me to mock these people who clearly think bombs only look like black balls with a fuse or a red stick dynamite like in the cartoons.

RightWinged on February 7, 2007 at 2:53 PM

I don’t blame the police, but I don’t blame the people who placed the ads either.

Nonfactor on February 7, 2007 at 3:00 PM

I don’t think it’s ‘clear’ at all that those of us who recognized the signs for what they were think bombs only look a certain way. While I’m not EOD, I’ve had my own training on IEDs/carbombs/antiterrorism, etc., and more has to be out of the ordinary than ‘that object doesn’t belong there’ to make it an actionable threat. Credible, yes, and that bears investigation…immediately actionable, no.

Terrorists can indeed make their bombs look like anything…but it works best if they try to make them as inconspicuous as possible in order to not draw undue attention to them.

It’s also preposterous to think that a terrorist would place bombs in conspicuous areas then leave them for weeks without detonating them. Surely someone at the scene (other than Berdovsky, since he wasn’t speaking up…but that’s a separate issue) could have confirmed to the cops that they had already been there for a long time.

Taken individually, any of these factors don’t disqualify what the BPD did, but combined together, the chance that this was a real threat quickly approached zero. It warranted investigation, not a city-wide shutdown.

James on February 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM

James on February 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM

You logic has been defeated time and time again on this and another thread. Where was all this criticizm in the moments this was going down? Why, after the fact, do people come out of the woodwork with arguments viewed from the eye of the monday morning quarterback? It’s completely disengenuous.

csdeven on February 7, 2007 at 3:53 PM

You logic has been defeated time and time again on this and another thread. Where was all this criticizm in the moments this was going down? Why, after the fact, do people come out of the woodwork with arguments viewed from the eye of the monday morning quarterback? It’s completely disengenuous.

Saying ‘I won!’ over and over again does not mean you won an argument.

James on February 7, 2007 at 3:58 PM

I don’t think it’s ‘clear’ at all that those of us who recognized the signs for what they were think bombs only look a certain way. While I’m not EOD, I’ve had my own training on IEDs/carbombs/antiterrorism, etc., and more has to be out of the ordinary than ‘that object doesn’t belong there’ to make it an actionable threat. Credible, yes, and that bears investigation…immediately actionable, no.

James on February 7, 2007 at 3:28 PM

Not immediately actionable? 911 calls reporting suspicious “packages” aren’t immediately actionable? So from now on when there is a bomb threat in a court house or a school, it will be business as usual… ya know, until we get around to dealing with it. Not “immediatley actionable” though.

And

Saying ‘I won!’ over and over again does not mean you won an argument.

James on February 7, 2007 at 3:58 PM

I know that wasn’t directed at me, but I have to point out saying “i won!” isn’t what’s going on. Our side is just tired of reiterating the same points that address every point your side keeps bringing back up.

RightWinged on February 7, 2007 at 4:12 PM

Ahhhh yes, blame. The age-old implement of liberals, almost mythical in its ability to instantly rectify any problem, cure any disease, and guarantee the stupidity of the wielder.

Please, speak more on who did what wrong, I’m still confused as to the depth of the stupidity here.

unamused on February 7, 2007 at 4:13 PM

baldilocks
You know who I am…

Bomb Doctor on February 7, 2007 at 5:44 PM

The first device was investigated by officials in the morning. They closed the road and went about normal bomb squad activities, and the device was determined to be not a threat. 4 Calls came in around 1PM about 2 more identical devices which were investigated. Thats it. I see no evidence in any news articles that lots of calls about all of these devices were made all around the city. That is a fantasy of apologists for this response. Police went searching and created a panic after the above happened.

So the PD discovered a few suspicous and unknown but harmelss devices. What is the next course of action?
If you believe A) they should investigate what these devices are and where they came from then it was a failure since this wasn’t discovered until later and panic ensued and frenzied search was carried out.
If you believe B) that a search of the city should begin to find every similiar device despite it being harmless and unidentified then it was a failure since most of the devices were not found until the company that placed them there said where they were.

The devices were there for weeks. We know most citizens who saw these 30+ devices around the city (and in other cities) didnt even bother to phone the police, why is that?
Some of you think we are being weak on terrosism by poiting out it was a false alarm but meanwhile you totally ignore the fact that if those devices were actual bombs then they would have saved exactly 0 lives with the flawed response as it was. They followed up that achievment by closing the city to collect the devices without finding out what they are.

I’m sorry but alot of you are on the bandwagon of lets do anything as long it appears to make us safe but we wont analyze if it is actually effective or makes sense.

Resolute on February 7, 2007 at 7:52 PM

Resolute on February 7, 2007 at 8:01 PM

So Resolute, you’re going to continue to bash the police based on your own made up facts and ignore any and all points raised that fully debunk everything you’re trying to put forth?

AGAIN, I ask you to show me your source for your information. You keep insisting that the police only got a few calls, shut down the city and “searched” the city. Where is your evidence that they went on some unguided search, rather than responded to specific calls. I asked you before, yet you refuse to provide your evidence. Why, Resolute? Why?

RightWinged on February 7, 2007 at 8:23 PM

Because he has no evidence Rightwinged.

The devices were there for weeks. We know most citizens who saw these 30+ devices around the city (and in other cities) didnt even bother to phone the police, why is that?

Because moron, Mr. Bodovsky and his clan were the ones calling in the devices to gather footage for his next video installation. I know I am starting to sound like a broken record but how many times do I have to point out this a’holes background.

His prior piece was titled I wash my TV in Fear. He uses images from television, as well as, personally videotaped reactions of people in situations to create his “art”. How far does one have to stretch one imagination to come to the simple conclusion that Mr. Bodovsky orchestrated the entire episode?

If you had been watching this all unfold and were a personal witness to the happenings on the ground in real time you would know that no description of the “devices” were reported in the media until the early afternoon; and yet the Police received numerous calls of suspicious devices during the same time that “NO DESCRIPTION OF THE DEVICES WERE RELEASED”.

Now I ask you; WHY IS THAT????

kiakjones on February 7, 2007 at 9:14 PM

Comment pages: 1 2