JPINFV

You're making the same point that he is making, which is the same point I made by posting the actual appeals court decision.

Only in Candida.

If he was a woman they'd have to be concerend about the possibility of having a bun in the oven,

It's unfortunate that it was... ...unleavened bread. Let's hope he didn't get... too mixed up.

Edit: Never mind... if people can't discuss issues like grownups, then I'm going to stop replying to them.

First they came for the communists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me. ...and really, "Will a disrobed patient video be more fun at your next Occupy meeting?" Will a video of you destroying someone else's property be more fun at your next Fascist Anonymous meeting? I can meet hyperbole with hyperbole.

http://emtmedicalstudent.wordpress.com/2011/01/20/ems-documentation-introducing-pre-soaped/

The first amendment only discusses "freedom of the press" without regard to it being against public officials. Lovell v City of Griffin doesn't deal with city officials directly, just "who is the press." Furthermore, the reason I come back to Glik v Cunniffee is that the discussion of the case law that went into deciding that decision goes well beyond simply taping government officials. Furthermore, if you're looking for a case that specifically is 'man with camera vs private ambulance crew,' one most likely doesn't exist. In the same manner, there's unlikely to be a case that puts a responsibility to maintain a patient's privacy on a private citizen onlooker nor is there a case that allows a medical provider to physically accost an onlooker, nor is there going to be a case that requires a medical worker to be responsible for the actions of onlookers. There's a difference between a medical worker not releasing information based on privacy statutes, and forcing someone not bound by privacy statutes to abide by said statutes. Houchins v KQED was a case that was cited in the Glik case that was about gathering information about prisoners. They, in part, held that "There is an undoubted right to gather news "from any source by means within the law," That line from the Houchin's decision was directly quoted in the Glik decision. While Houchins was about the press looking at prison conditions, and Glik was about filming police officers, the facts surrounding the case doesn't change the fact that "There is an undoubted right to gather news "from any source by means within the law," and that the concept of "freedom of the press" doesn't just apply to those who own a proverbial "press" (i.e. news companies). So, what law is there that limits a private citizen from filming an emergency scene out in public? Furthermore, a lot of the cases comes back to citizens collecting and disseminating how our government is acting. If I'm a citizen of City A, and City A has a contract with Private Service 1 to provide emergency medical services to the city, then I think that there's a very strong argument that I have a first amendment right to gather and disperse information on the qualtiy of Private Service 1 provided that the information is gathered in a legal manner. How else can I, as a citizen, petition the local government to either renew or reject the contract with Private Service 1 when their contract is up?

Without getting into the Zimmerman situation, since there's too much that isn't known yet and too many other variables than a photographer case, I think forced in self-defense needs to be proportional to what is being faced. I think that if an EMT or paramedic is grabbing or throwing punches at someone who is outside of the exclusion zone then that person is free to respond in kind until the aggressor stops agressing. However I don't think that rises to the need to use deadly force, such as a concealed weapon.

1st Amendment, freedom of press. Per SCOTUS, action makes someone a part of the press, not employment. See Lovell v City of Griffin (1938) for that rulling which said that not just newspapers and periodicals are press, but also leaflets and fliers. That ruling still stands and has been interpreted to include things in the modern world like blogs. There's also Glik v Cunniffee (2011), which is a Federal 1st Circuit Court of Appeals case revolving an arrest of an individual filming the police in Boston. Page 8-14 is where it discusses the first amendment right to film government officials. Well, Florida v Zimmerman is going to test the protections of Florida's Stand Your Ground law rather extensively.

You can also consider the fence to be the perimeter line on a scene. Since it's rather germane to the discussion of strikeing photographers, Detriot is getting a new fire commishioner after he cursed at and slapped a microphone out of a reporter's hands who was trying to ask him questions about the lack of maintnance in Detroit's fire stations. http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7355386 The confrontation is at 55 seconds.

"Public property" and "state property" isn't the same thing. Try walking through the governor's house or the back rooms of the local court house and see how far you can get. The difference between having that roof and not having that roof is a pretty big difference. It's like the difference between an unfenced yard and a fenced yard. In general, it's not trespassing for people to be in an unfencsed, unsigned yard until told to leave. A fenced or signed yard, on the other hand, makes their mere presence trespassing. The big difference is that everyone has a right to be on public lands like a city street.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals case that I posted earlier was a case out of Boston, MA. The courts don't take kindly to police constantly arresting people for actions that they've ruled to be constitutionally protected. That's a good way for a police officer to find himself out of a job and house and home. Civil rights suits aren't cheap. Furthermore, that's not what disorderly conduct is. Since you're from Minnesota, I'll look at the Minnesota penal code. https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.72 Filming a scene is neither engaging in brawling/fighting, disturbing an assembly or meeting, or offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct in the manner that you would like it to. Furthermore, "others" is going to mean multiple people. Second, while MN does have an Interference with Privacy statute, but none of it applies to the situations we're discussing. Part of the problem in the US that the "press" in the confines of "freedom of press" is... well... everyone. I have just as much right to publish, print, and report on than a journalist from the Los Angeles Times do because that right doens't flow from being employed in that capacity, but by being a citizen. US Supreme Court case Lovell v City of Griffin is the one that defines everyone as a member of the press.

...but how many bar fights see people go to jail and catch convinctions? Is it worth your ability to support your family? Especially if the person you're protecting isn't your family? The problem is that if you read the responses, a lot of people are advocating the most aggressive response possible when other options exist besides force (either on your own part or by enlisting the police). The problem is that we don't get to make up our own personal rules and punishments for actions. For example, think that if a sex offender is unstable enough to require all of the extra rules that comes with being a registered sex offender (discussion of the validty of those rules and that list is for another thread), then they're too dangerous to be out in public. However I don't get to ransack their house or break their car windows to make them leave the neighborhood. However, if I was to take the stance quoted, and engage in the actions that are being advocated on the first page of this thread, then I should be perfectly justified in taking what ever action necessary to run a dangerous convict out of my neighborhood. After all, the state isn't going to step in and protect me, so I have to take matters into my own hands. Maybe mob mentality is the wrong chocie of words, but it was the closest term I could think of for, "Damn the laws, I'm going to enforce what I want... because" mentality. Can the government regulate every distasteful action? No, and for a variety of reasons. Does that grant others license to "stand up" in a manner that violates the law, especially when other courses of action exist that are in compliance with the law? Also no. I'm arguing that you can't physically confront someone and take their camera because the government has said that taking other people's property is wrong. I'm arguing that we can't confront and make someone turn off the camera because, yes, the govenrment hasn't given us the power to force our will on other people. Emergency responders are granted additional power to properly control a scene, but that power only exists as far as necessary, and somoene standing outside of the barrier is no longer on scene, and thus out of the responders' legal sphere of influence. So, yes, when it comes to an action that would otherwise be violating the law, then the government needs to carve out an exception. It's not about being sheep without a police officer. It's about choosing an approprite, balanced, and legal response (this one especially when someone is requesting a police officer for assistance). Most the responses I saw on the first page was neither appropriate, balanced, or legal. I didn't take anything you said as being negative against me. If I can't justify the positions I carry on something like this then I probably shouldn't be expousing them.

Sorry if I'm not being clear. I'm not trying to evade this point. Yes, there is no inheriant right such as there is with government officials (of course if fire or PD is on scene...). However I don't feel that it rises to the level of violance, especially given that there are other options available, such as tarps, sheets, or moving the patient. There's a very big leap between, "I'm going to make it so that you can't see," and "I'm going to make it so that you can't film by either making just you leave (not the 20 other people watching), or breaking your camera." If they want to film a big white sheet that 2 other people are holding, then fine. It limits what actions I can take, though. There's no law saying I can't stand right in front of the camera that's filming on scene. If I have enough time to leave to confront someone filming, then there's enough people on scene anyways. In regards to my daughter falling, again, I don't have a right to haul off and sucker punch them or break the camera. Will I get mad and probably create a scene hoping to shame them into deleting the pictures? Sure, but that's a far cry from breaking their camera. Now lets take this to the next step. A crowd gathers watching you and one or two people in the crowd are filming and you only tell the 2 people filming to leave and they don't compy. What's the next step? The problem is that they've now called your bluff unless you're willing to expand the perimeter for everyone. Getting the police involved? If the police are doing what they should (upholding the law), then they aren't going to do anything except maybe be a moving privacy shield (usefull, but they're still there). Moral and ethical obligations don't surpress the restraints placed on us by law unless we're willing to face the consequences. Again, I'm not arguing that no action can be taken, only that a physical alterication isn't one of them. We can ask, but we can't forced. We can, however, block the view, but that's largely the only option we have. The issue is that there is no right to privacy while out in public. There is no legal obligation involved with John Q. Public such as there is with medical providers. I do agree that my right ends where another person right's begins, but no such right or expectation of privacy exists for the most part when out in public. I'd rather not take the chance of facing a jury when I can take other actions that are perfectly legal and obtain the same end goal. Granted, this is more for rainin this picture, but if you drop the tarp then privacy is maintained. If you have enough time to be looking at the crowd and confronting people, then you have enough time to hold a tarp. There's also the issue of covering the patient with a sheet when done with any exam or procedures that requires the patient to be unclothed. Can someone post something after this (even if it's just a word or two) so I can post the rest of the resposne without breaking the formatting?

It resonates with me because I think that we should have the right to film our government officials. In general, however, the issue arises when someone wants to film the police. Furthermore, when I see videos like the one posted before or where emergency responders take the law into their own hands it doesn't look good for EMS as a profession. Furthermore, I bristle at the fact that people are sitting here advocating taking physical, and ultimately illegal, force against someone else. I'm not going to sit back and let "I'll break their camera because... I want to" go unchallenged. A comment about that link, the photographer was already moving across the road to where the EMT was pointing to when she stopped him. When she smacked the camera she ended up breaking the image stabilizer, hence the unsteady shot. It's about appropriateness of the response. I have a right to film government officials. I have a right to not be assulted, to not be battered, and to be secure in my property. The patient has a right to privacy from those dispatched and those engaged in the patient's care, but doesn't have a right to privacy from the general public. As such, I have to draw the line at physically forcing (through theft, assault, battery, or a combination of the three) someone to stop filming as it is neither a reasonable, proportionate, or legal use of force. There's a difference between those, and say, recruiting people to hold up sheets or moving the patient to someplace private. This is especially true if no complaint is going to be made about people watching. There's little difference in my mind between filming and simply watching when privacy comes into play, but no one is advocating that we strike at people watching from the barrier or push those people back. Instead the focus is on the camera and the camera's magical ability to interfer at a distance in a manner that eyes lack. As such, the argument agaisnt taping, for the most part, also lacks any sort of consistency. This isn't about progressiveness and open mindedness. Just because you think ____ is distasteful, disrespectful, or anything else doesn't mean you can force your views on someone else, just like I lack the ability to force any views I have on you. How would you like it if I came up to you and assaulted you because I thought you doing _____ was distasteful, disrespectful, or something else of a similar nature, albeit legal? I suddently get a pass at engaging in an illegal action because I disagreed with your actions? Are you willing to go to jail for it? I agree that somethings should be disallowed. My two issues is first off the wording of such regulation (as I alluded to in my reply after you posted this), and second is that until it is disallowed, it's not disallowed. Mob justice is wrong, regardless of how rightous the goals are.

I agree in principal that people shouldn't just being standing at the barricade filming care being given, but I think the wording is going to be difficult. Is filming a house fire now going to be illegal? Oh, I can film the house fire until the fire fighters pull someone out, then I have to shut it off even if I'm not focusing on it? What about security cameras? It would be a shame if the security camera footage of the Kelly Thomas beating was thrown out because it also showed the intial on scene care (as well as the officers initially complaing about their little boo-boos while the man they just murdered was left chocking on his own blood). After all, it would be a fruit of a poisonous tree now. Furthermore, we have a right to film government officials in the course of their actions (Glik v Cunniffe et. al PDF warning). While it's a 1st Circuit case, thus only applying to the 1st Circuit, they do a good job of citing other case law as well as other decisions from other circuit. While there is no right to film a private ambulance crew (albeit I don't think it would be a stretch that an ambulance service responding to a call originating from a public safety access point, especially if that service is contracted by the local government for those services are there for representing the local government), an argument can definitely be made that filming a government fire department is as much a 1st amendment right as is filming police officers while in public. More importantly, I think there's a very dangerous slippery slope issue involved. It'll be the next eavesdropping law where it will be abused in manners that aren't intended. Finally, there's already enough videos online of fire fighters and EMTs taking the "law" (since there often is no law barring such behavior) into their own hands against. It's no more an EMT's job to take physical action against someone filming as it is to, say, chase down someone speeding through an accident scene. Why are we so afraid to confront patients with psychatric illness yet willing to get into a physcal altercation over a piece of electronics? Cognitive dissonance.

You haven't established that the simple action of filming is any more interfering with the operation than standing there watching it sans camera. Edit to add: If I'm standing at a close enough distance that I'm interfering with the operation simply because of my presence, then whether I have a camera or not is irrelevant. No one is arguing that a reasonable exclusion zone can't be made. What's being argued is that there isn't one line for people without cameras and another line for people with cameras.

People get arrested all the time and released. Police departments also catch civil rights suits when the intentionally arrest people because they don't like the person's lawful actions. The fact that an accident occurs on the freeway doesn't mean that there is suddently an expectation of privacy on the freeway. How does someone with a camera affect the outcome anymore than the person standing next to them sans camera? You haven't explained how the person with a camera is interfering with a public safety operation any more than the person next to them without the camera. If you're at an accident scene do you also call the FAA to get the news helicopters to move? Do you have a police officer go into the buildings adjacent to an emergency scene to make sure that no one looks out a window, or worse, look out the window with a camera? You've yet to show how the presence of a camera interfers with your scene. Maybe I'm an ACLU loving pinko-commie libertarian, but I don't see how people have a sense of privacy (outside special areas like bathrooms, least we get another obtuse comment), and I don't see how someone feels that they have the right to engage in physical and ultimately criminal activity, nor expect represtatives of the state to use their power, to force another individual to stop engaging in a lawful action. I'm not arguing that it's not an asshole move to film a medical scene in public. However being an asshole isn't illegal. Want to make it illegal, there's a method for that. Petitiion the state legislature to make it illegal. Until then, I can't condone criminal or illegitimate use of force agaisnt a lawful action.

If you're going to back up the cameras you better be backing up everyone without a camera as well. You still haven't explained how someone with a camera is somehow interfering with your scene and the person standing next to them without the camera is not interfering with them. ...and yes, there's an expectation of privacy in locker rooms and bathrooms. I just assumed that people wouldn't be obtuse about it. By the way, let's get a lawyer's opinion on whether we can assault or arrest bystanders just for filimg. At least my generation doesn't feel the need to commit battery against individuals engaged in activities that we don't agree with.

The first amendment doesn't allow for battery. If only there was a word for that. Oh, yea, robbery. So robbery and distruction of property. I hope you have enough money to replace the cell phone. 1. HIPAA doesn't apply to the general public, 2. There is no expectation of privacy when out in public. 3. How is the camera interfering with your prompt and necessary medical care than someone without a camera? 4. How does a camera interfer with a crime scene, assuming it is a crime scene? 5. How does a camera interfer with accident reconstruction? No more relevant than all of those strongly worded letters that the UN sends to Iran. I have to follow the laws of what ever area I'm in and the UN neither makes nor enforces those laws. What civil penalties? Cite applicable laws or cases where someone faced actual penalties for the mere act of filming out in public. Not other violations that might have also occured, but just for the act of filming. Similarly, HIPAA doesn't require me to go take somene else's film. Is there an ethical imparitive to attempt to prevent it? Sure, but moving the patient to a more private area or having someone hold up something like a sheet fullfills that imperative. Assult, battery, and robbery, however, is not justified.

1 patient, 4 times during the call, but that patient also had a signfiicant psych history including conversion syndrome and was being picked up from an outpatient county psych office.

So it's not every patient or any patient with a history of mental illness. As long as that's the case, then discretion is available and discretion should be used. Also, I'm a bit confused. How can you have zero tolerance, yet not be required to "always snow paitnets"? Are you simply ignoring that directive (and bad directives should be ignored)? If it's not zero tolerance, then why is it being presented as any history of mental illness gets snowed? If paramedics can adequately assess psych disorders why have a zero tolerance policy? There's cognitative dissonance in saying "Well, we can adequately assess patients, but we're required to do X regardless of our assessment." If you can adequately assess, then you should also fight to not be required, as a group, to do X. You can't be comitted on your own accord because treatment while committed is, for all but certain extreme treatments, not voluntary and not on their own accord. Additionally, the threat assessment for a patient who presents because he is listening to voices and a patient who hears voices and knows that they are bad and is seeking treatment on his own isn't the same simply because the latter recognizes that those voices are abnormal. The last thing I'd want is that second patient to not come in because he doesn't like getting needlessly snowed. Apparently the patient above has something working because he recognizes that the voices aren't normal, isn't listening to said voices, and knows he needs a med adjustment. Group therapy isn't going to make the voices go away. What are you expecting? Him being an inpatient until the voices go away? Was anyone else injured in his suicide? Taking a human life, including ones own, often involves violence, and I'll put patients suffering from severe mental illness seeking death in the same category as someone suffering from ALS or other chronic, cureless disease with an immense amount of suffering seeking death. Hearing your TV talking to you isn't exactly the same on the suicide scale as someone suffering from depression because their BFF left them. So any patient with a prior history of sucidie attempts gets sedated if the crew knows about it? "Sorry ma'am, it looks like you tried to commit suicide 20 years ago when you were 15. We're going to have to sedate you for this trip... for all of our safety." What are those conditions? Also what do you mean by "those that actually have been diagnosed with a medical condition"? As compared to all those people running around crying about their fake mental illness? ...and wait a minute. We go from "schizophrenic who knows the voices in the TV are in his head and knows that he needs help, thus seeks it" to "violent drug addict." That's a bit of a jump. Similarly, we go from "any mental illness" to "those being forced to go." However I've seen enough holds for dubious reasons (The, "Whaa, my BF broke up with me and I'm drunk on wine and want to hurt myself, but I don't have a plan and I'm just depressed and was venting to a friend over the phone" holds) that even the "only those on a hold" is a bit too far. I get that it's a plane or helicopter and I agree that the threshold should be lower than an ambulance. However when it's presented that everyone on a hold or everyone with a history of mental illness, regardless of any assessment, gets snowed, I'm going to call foul. There's a difference between a lower threshold, and not having any threshold. I get a bit snippy when it comes to mental illnesses because I've seen how being needlessly agressive can negatively impact a patient, I've seen stupidty, both from system protocols, the people writing holds, and other EMTs, and I've seen how a patient can be completely different even a few hours and a couple of meds later. Not necessarilly enough to let them off of a hold 2 days early, but definitely in the right mind set to not require them to be strapped down in 4 point restraints. Similarly, my undergrad research project was in schizophrenic and bipolar patients looking at how well they filter stimuli. It's a big difference when mental illness is looked at as a neuro problem and not a mind problem.

If what is being said is true, and anyone with a mental health disorder, including simple depression, are being knocked out, then it's stupid, dangerous, and the "but our safety" people are idiots who can't assess patients. It's everything that's bad with "zero tolerance" or "always do ___" policies or rules. There's a time and place for chemical restraints, but just as the indication for a non-rebreather mask isn't "ambulance," the indication for chemical restraints should not and cannot be "history of any mental illness." You never know how anyone is going to act, ergo everyone should be knocked out. Not everyone being comitted is being comitted because they are a danger to themselves or a danger to others. Furthermore, since this sounds like middle of nowhere frontier rural, just because someone is being admitted doesn't mean that they are being comitted. If psychotropic medication is the sign of, to use your term, lazy physicians, then making every patient with a history of any mental illness unconcious is the sign of a lazy flight crew. Is that for patients who actually need sedation, or the insanity of "any patient with a history of mental illness, regardless of how slight, gets to go to lala land because... well... because we said so, regardless of if the patient actually presents a danger to... well... anyone"? Or is it because the medical community views putting patients under heavy sedation for no better reason than "because" to be malpractice? Alternatively, is it a combination of HEMS induced malpractice and a misunderstanding on the appropriate uses of chemical sedation?

It is a FTE, but I believe he's also required to maintain a clinical EM job. California is highly regionalized with the regions being either counties or groups of counties. Also the counties themselves generally don't run ambulances (I say "generally" only because I know that LACo staffs a bariatric ambulance with a driver that services can request, but the service has to provide the medical crew). For my county at least, it's not a traditional medical director job in the sense that the medical director is overseeing the day to day activities of individial paramedics. That largely falls to the base hospitals (each paramedic unit is assigned to a base hospital, and each base hospital has it's own medical director) and the individual services (limited to Air Methods/Mercy Air for HEMS and fire departments currently). It's much more of an executive position than anything else.