Bystanders with Cell phones and taking pictures

[Arctickat]

Perhaps proponents should voice their support for this proposed law then?

http://www.jems.com/article/news/illinois-bill-bans-cellphone-emergency-s?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+jems%2Fthelatest+%28JEMS.com%3A+The+Latest+EMS+News+%26+Features%29

[ERDoc]

I don't think the IL bill has any teeth to it. It limits the cameras within 500 feet, but so what? My iPhone 4S can take some pretty awesome pictures at greater distances. It's a step in the right direction though, too bad the intent isn't to protect the patient. People who become patients in a public area should be able to expect the same level of privacy they have in their own homes. They are no longer just John Q Public, they have become a patient and that status is deserving of extra protection even if it means hurting someone's feelings.

[emt2359]

Perhaps proponents should voice their support for this proposed law then?

http://www.jems.com/...ews & Features)

That article and proposed law just prevents the use of a cell phone by the driver within 500 feet of the scene. It would not prevent non-drivers from operating a cell phone or taking a picture at a scene.

Edited June 2, 2012 by emt2359

[DwayneEMTP]

Pox, what the hell? Where did all of that venom come from?

Plus, it seems that he's asked you over and over to explain why, if you're using public safety as an excuse to move him, or take his camera, how you'll explain not moving the person next to him. Seems like a valid question to me. Or will you simply move everyone within camera distance? That's a pretty big perimeter...

JP is sometimes condescending in my opinion, but it's pretty uncommon, and it seems that this topic resonates with him. I for one, having experience with him here for several years would hope that many, not all, but many of the doctors being produces would be such open minded thinkers.

As Doc said, I get JP's point of view. I'm not completely sure that it's valid if you're using the first amendment alone to defend the camera users actions, for the reasons highlighted in my previous post, but I'm guessing that he's probably right.

I am confused though JP when you reference the constitution (I think you did) and legality, why you're only concerned with violence and have none for the comments about 'responsibility', 'health', 'privacy' and 'morals?'

But again, we live in a world where we're supposed to show our progressiveness, intelligence and open mindedness by standing quietly and being victimized, but I didn't grow up in that world.

If someone calls Babs a whore, is he legally/constitutionally protected for his free speech? I'd imagine so as long as he does it without becoming aggressive. Is that going to keep me from knocking the shit out of him and making sure that he never even considers doing such a thing again? Not at all.

Even in this liberal world where we're supposed to show ourselves to be better than the animals by being docile and submissive regardless of the circumstances, some shit just needs to be disallowed.

I'm grateful for your thoughts....

[JPINFV]

I don't think the IL bill has any teeth to it. It limits the cameras within 500 feet, but so what? My iPhone 4S can take some pretty awesome pictures at greater distances. It's a step in the right direction though, too bad the intent isn't to protect the patient. People who become patients in a public area should be able to expect the same level of privacy they have in their own homes. They are no longer just John Q Public, they have become a patient and that status is deserving of extra protection even if it means hurting someone's feelings.

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.

[Arctickat]

I'm not proficient in this...but I do believe there is a civil law against publishing photos of an individual without that individual's express consent. No law against taking the video, just against publishing it. Then again, I believe there is an exemption for news items. I dunno. I just try to not put my patient into a compromising position that would cause him or her some embarrassment.

I do wonder though, the OP stated that the patient's condition wasn't serious and that he, as the third rescuer, wasn't needed. Why then was the patient stripped out in the open for everyone with a camera to snap pictures of? Why not move her to the ambulance and do your secondary there?

[JPINFV]

JP is sometimes condescending in my opinion, but it's pretty uncommon, and it seems that this topic resonates with him. I for one, having experience with him here for several years would hope that many, not all, but many of the doctors being produces would be such open minded thinkers.

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.

I am confused though JP when you reference the constitution (I think you did) and legality, why you're only concerned with violence and have none for the comments about 'responsibility', 'health', 'privacy' and 'morals?'

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.

But again, we live in a world where we're supposed to show our progressiveness, intelligence and open mindedness by standing quietly and being victimized, but I didn't grow up in that world.

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?

If someone calls Babs a whore, is he legally/constitutionally protected for his free speech? I'd imagine so as long as he does it without becoming aggressive. Is that going to keep me from knocking the shit out of him and making sure that he never even considers doing such a thing again? Not at all.

Are you willing to go to jail for it?

Even in this liberal world where we're supposed to show ourselves to be better than the animals by being docile and submissive regardless of the circumstances, some shit just needs to be disallowed.

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.

[ERDoc]

JP, I agree there is no easy way to word it. It is one of those situations that needs to be left to the legal minds to work out.

[WestMetroMedic]

Maybe I am doing EMS the wrong way, but the patients privacy is my responsibility. Dicks exist. So do sheets and tarpaulins.

My goal on a critical patient is 6 minutes of scene time. I have better things to worry about than some nosy nellies. If I don't, then perhaps I should make the patients privacy my obligation. Adapt, overcome, improvise.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

Edited June 2, 2012 by WestMetroMedic

[Bieber]

Man, I think I'll just get the patient in the ambulance and expose them in there. There's too much fighting on scene for me to work.