Spectators at Incident Today

[Wahoodlum]

Refrain from newspapers magazines television and the internet.

What did you think you had to contribute, going "to see what the trouble was about," stay there, watch, and act like your name on this board.

Would you not have been more appropriately tasked, upon learning the circumstances, returning to ensure your daughter remained wisely sequestered.

Don't do much praying do you? no biggy,I will pray for you too

 

[seaducer]

Freedom. Freedom means that there are things going on out there that you don't like. But that does not mean people should be restricted from doing them.

I think that the laws need to be updated to include things like cameras. People will eventually stop rescuing if they think someone with a phone can provide evidence for a lawyer to circumvent the Good Samaritan laws. This problem is with the legal system.

There are plenty of things I find distasteful, but I support everyone's right to not have taste.

I would not video such an incident, I would hope others would not either, but I would not stop them from legally using their equipment either. Nor would I advocate laws that limit it either.

Gotta take the good with the bad in this country. And THAT is a good thing.

 

[lamont]

All of you who are anti-video are assuming you know what's in the head of the videographer and what use that person will make of the product. You're also assuming that any such person would know that the outcome of the rescue attempt would be a failure. Do you believe that non-divers know the how unlikely it is that such a rescue would succeed? I don't. You know that the victim is probably beyond help and see someone recording death. Might the person with a camera think they are actually capturing a heroic rescue?

It does not matter what is in the heads of the people taking the picture. The intent is irrelevant. And if they think they're filming a heroic rescue, they're simply mistaken, and having been at the scene of an accident, I can tell you that you'd have to be completely emotionally blind to not pick up on what is really going on.

For those who would block a camera, would you do the same if there were a professional crew wearing the insignia of the local TV station? Do you think you'd get away with it?

Yes, and yes I would get away with it. You can be arrested for interfering with a police officer, you cannot be arrested for interfering with a journalist. They don't have any legal recourse, as long as you avoid assaulting them. As long as they hit you and you don't hit them, you can get in their way.

And as far as I'm concerned as soon as the professionals show up -- the 911 guys with the lights and the sirens -- then all the "citizen-journalists" can film away. I still find it tasteless, but the professionals, as part of their job, know how to be professional and know how to deal with people taking video footage. All of the amateur rescuers don't need that kind of crap.

 

[Dirty-Dog]

And as far as I'm concerned as soon as the professionals show up -- the 911 guys with the lights and the sirens -- then all the "citizen-journalists" can film away. I still find it tasteless, but the professionals, as part of their job, know how to be professional and know how to deal with people taking video footage. All of the amateur rescuers don't need that kind of crap.

Mostly I deal with them by ignoring them, so long as they stay out of the way. They have their job to do, and although I may personally find it in poor taste to broadcast bloody film from a crash or crime scene, I understand why they do it.

 

[ZenDiver.3D]

Now that we are winding down on this, does anyone have up to date information? Not on the sequence of events but official accident report?

 

[bladephotog]

...A person who is dying has a right to privacy and respect even though they can't enforce that right. Taking their picture without consent violates their rights. ...There is no constitutional protection for violating the rights of others. This is why cameras are often prohibited from the court room.

Sorry but that's not entirely true. A person dying in public view has no right to privacy. Taking their photo does not violate their rights if used for editorial purposes. You may find it distasteful but that's another argument. Also, cameras are barred from federal courts because of concerns about the effects cameras might have on witnesses and jurors, but they are rarely, if ever, barred from municipal and common pleas courts, at least around here. How cameras are handled in said courts is usually up to the individual judge.

This case is certainly sad and tragic, as is any death. I've been involved on all sides of this issue, as a professional photographer who's had to photograph countless accidents, as a person who's seen my own photo published when I was involved in a bad accident, and as one who's had to administer first aid to a person hit by a car while waiting for the helicopters to arrive. To me, being involved on any side sucks.

I know nothing about this event other than what's been posted but I have a couple points to consider. First off, when it comes to using any shot video or photos for legal purposes, it's often difficult, even with subpoenas, to get those shots from a TV station or newspaper. Media outlets generally fight these so as not to become an arm of the legal system for either the prosecution or defense. My point is that arguing using media pictures for training purposes, legal purposes etc., isn't very realistic IMO. As for Joe Diver standing there shooting video with their cell phone, only they know why they are shooting. Maybe ask them why they are shooting? Most amateurs will get the message and shut down. But make no mistake, uploading to You Tube, Facebook, etc, or even posting a photo on the bathroom wall at the local McDonalds where more than a few people will see it, constitutes publication, and if taken without permission on private property, can and should have legal ramifications for the publisher no matter if they are from the local media outlet or Joe Bystander with a cell phone camera. I also know that prosecutors and defense lawyers have an insane ability to track down amateur footage and use it in a court of law, which also means said owner of footage will get tied up on the legal battle.

Second, was the person with the tripod from a local media outlet? Were they on private or public property? If private, did they have permission from the owners? If I show up at a dive site, pay my entry fee to dive, and there is an accident, just because I paid my entry fee does not give me the right to publish photos from the scene. I'm no lawyer but I do know how the law relates to my work and I have respect for it.

Third, I can understand why someone would want to block my lens, I've had it happen at accident scenes even when I'm at a respectful distance. But it usually leads to a bigger distraction for law enforcement or those tasked with securing the scene. The last thing they need is to be dealing with this stuff while someone is dying. If someone with a camera is in the way or on private property, tell them to move. If not, leave them alone as they are within their legal rights no matter how distasteful you may think it is.

Personally when I approach the scene of an accident, fire etc., I try to talk to the incident commander or law enforcement officer to find out what's going on. Specifically, I want to know if there is a fatality or real potential for a fatality. If so I put the camera down until there is something I can shoot that doesn't show a body. We don't run body photos so there is no need to photograph them. I guess my point is that if there is no outlet for the photos what's the point of taking them?

Nobody likes the media in situations like this. I understand that. There are good reasons to cover tragic events but it's pointless to discuss them IMO. It's like trying to convert a republican into a democrat or a Mac user into a PC user. Some understand the reasons, others don't and likely don't care to hear them. But really this discussion just takes away from the reality that someone's loved one died. Maybe finding out what happened and trying to learn from that would be time better spent.

 

[bladephotog]

Yes, and yes I would get away with it. You can be arrested for interfering with a police officer, you cannot be arrested for interfering with a journalist. They don't have any legal recourse, as long as you avoid assaulting them. As long as they hit you and you don't hit them, you can get in their way.

And as far as I'm concerned as soon as the professionals show up -- the 911 guys with the lights and the sirens -- then all the "citizen-journalists" can film away. I still find it tasteless, but the professionals, as part of their job, know how to be professional and know how to deal with people taking video footage. All of the amateur rescuers don't need that kind of crap.

Again, not entirely true in my experience. I've had incident commanders keep people from attacking me, threatening me and even standing in front of me, when I'm legally doing my job. Just depends on what kind of person is in charge and if said journalist is being an A-hole or not. Being professional and compassionate goes a long way.

And make no mistake, not all "professional" rescuers know how to deal with the media. I find the higher up the food chain so to speak the more professional they act. IMO, volunteer departments are the least professional to deal with, large fire departments, state patrol, Feds, generally the most professional. But that's not always the case.

 

[Tanked]

A person dying in public view has no right to privacy. Taking their photo does not violate their rights if used for editorial purposes.

This statment is utter, and complete BS. Not only does the person have a right to privacy, but also to decency and respect. If not for the person who has just died, then for the family who has to watch their loved ones corpse be shown over, and over again, all over the evening news.

 

[The Chairman]

This is really a right to dignity. "Dignity is a term used in moral, ethical, and political discussions to signify that a being has an innate right to respect and ethical treatment." Some people get this, and obviously some don't. For a few the Golden Rule has been perverted to read just "Do unto others", without the mitigating caveat that would imbue dignity to a fellow human being. While these voyeurs might feel empowered to callously steal the dignity from an injured or dying person, I feel that it is our duty to thwart them as much as is ethically possible.

 

[ScubaNurse758]

I know this thread has gone down a few rabbit holes since the beginning, but I was wondering, where were these so-called photojournalists during the rescue and resuscitation efforts? Were they on the platform or up in the parking lot or by the dive shop? Just curious, as their location might mean that the video would be of no use in any setting due to distance or obstructions (human or otherwise).