Bystanders with Cell phones and taking pictures

[DwayneEMTP]

...It resonates with me because I think that we should have the right to film our government officials...

You know, you kind of got after Pox for not answering a simple question, yet I feel like I'm making the same point over and over. In this particular instance you use this example despite my stating that neither I, nor my patient are connected to the government in any way, so I'm not clear how the above statement applies.

...I'm not going to sit back and let "I'll break their camera because... I want to" go unchallenged...

I get that from you Brother, and respect it. So it seems to be your point that nothing that hasn't already have a specific law made against it is worth defending? If this was your wife or daughter you would simply allow the filming to happen, allow their nude images to be shown on Youtube, and then apologize later saying, "I'm sorry for all of this babe. But I couldn't protect you because no one has made a law about that yet..." Serious question, not sniping.

Or, let's say your daughter falls and accidentally exposes herself in her dress. You notice a man aim his cell phone between her legs, taking pictures while laughing with his buddies. Same question, same non disrespectful tone.

...It's about appropriateness of the response. I have a right to film government officials...

Again, I know that you're more than smart enough to know that this argument doesn't apply, unless of course I'm not really part of this conversation any more any I'm just flapping my weenie in the breeze.

...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...

I feel the same about those watching and those filming. I'm disgusted by both when a vulnerable nude person is involved. Again, I'm not sure if you're referring to any of my statement, it's seems not, but just in case, I thought that I made it pretty clear that I didn't care if he was interfering or not, that was simply the excuse that I was going to use to make him stop.

The main difference between tolerating the watchers if necessary and not those filming is that the watchers can do very little damage by watching while those filming can do massive mental and emotional damage to the victim and their family. We are morally and ethically charged with protecting and advocating for our patients except in instances where it might obstruct some pervs voyeuristic evening?

Also, from the quoted articles of the first amendment that I posted, I don't see where he's legally protected to violate this patient in this way. Maybe you could explain that?

...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?...

You very well might. If a jury of your peers finds that my behavior was outside of the boundaries of what's normally considered morally acceptable in our society, you very well might. I believe that the difference between you and I is that I believe that the government can't make a law for everything that might harm another person. I believe that sometimes we have to stand up and fill the gaps.

It seems to me from your argument that you'd be willing (Again, assuming circumstances that we can't realistically mitigate in another way) to allow this woman while in your care to have her pictures, her privacy, her reputation possibly irreparably damaged (Much worse than a simple assault in my opinion) so as not to chance violating the rights of those that would violate her when helpless. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

...Are you willing to go to jail for it?...

I am, and have, and think back on those memories fondly. Maybe you know from my regular postings, maybe not, that it's not my way to look for trouble, but some things simply need to not happen. And if they begin, they need to be stopped right now. Not argued at some later date after more victims have been created.

I was out to a western bar with Babs and a lady friend of ours. As our lady friend was returning from the bathroom I saw some big drunk shithead following behind her. I saw about half the bar watching them, and most appeared afraid, making it obvious to me that he was a local bully. As they got nearer our table, I stood up and could hear him calling, "Here pussy pussy pussy. Come back you juicy little cunt..."

I whispered to Babs to take our friend to the car, and I, without warning, punched him in the mouth. As he was trying to get over the shock of that I hit him about 10 more times in the face, I just kept hitting him until he fell down. He crawled, stumbled, ran through the bar and out the back door and I've never had a single moment of guilt over that in the past 20 years. Some things shouldn't be allowed simply because the law has not yet been past that says that you can't follow a woman around singing a song calling her a pussy and a cunt. Or so I believe.

Had we called the police I'm confident that there are no laws against his actions and he would have spent his happy pathetic little life terrorizing other women in the same way. I'm very confident that for at least the next several weeks he had time to consider his actions and decide to be a better person. I'm happy that I could help.

I can't really see the idea of allowing people to be victimized and then sorting it out later, as opposed to stopping the victimization in the least aggressive way available and then sorting the rest out later. Above I was confident that polite conversation was not going to solve the issue. I am confident that he didn't do the same thing again any time soon. The world is a better place by Dwayne's reckoning.

Am I off in the ditch because I don't now consider our cell phone camera man a victim? I don't believe so. He had the ability to defend himself. He had the ability to stop performing the behavior that was obviously a douche bag move to begin with, yet he chose to stand and continue to commit emotional violence against a defenseless patient. I won't shed any tears over his broken camera.

...I agree that somethings should be disallowed...

I don't doubt you for a second. You just seem to believe that everything needs to be disallowed by the government. I don't believe that we are mature enough as a nation or a world to accept that we can stand idly by, watch our friends and neighbors be victimized by douchebags and trust that somehow the government will make it all better.

...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...

You and I must define a mob mentality and mob justice differently. I associated myself with no mob in my previous statement but explained my personal choice of theoretical actions. There was no mob in the bar. In each case I acted as an individual.

I'm not sure how to make the argument Brother that the government can't solve every ill. And that every man that chooses to stand up for himself or his family or his neighbors isn't simply a rabid dog because he's acting without proper government sanction.

On one hand you seem to be saying, "I have the right to film the police so as to protect myself from the government!" Yet on the other, "You can't do that because the government hasn't said that it's OK!" That confuses me.

I'm truly grateful that we disagree on this. I think that your attitude is the future, and we need people that think of the future to bring it into being. But your attitude also has people behave as sheep unless backed by a police officer. It demands that you stand by at such moments and spectate pain in the name of 'progress.' I just don't have that in me...

I don't know how, though I did try, to write statements like the above without having any of it that sounds petty, or intentionally insulting. I will ask that you believe that at no time was that my intention. I have huge respect for your intelligence and your contributions here. It was only my intention to try and give as clear a picture of my 'knuckle dragger' perspective as it relates to your comments as I understand them.

Thanks for taking the time to participate. No hard feelings if this is getting boring for you and you choose not to respond.

[Kiwiology]

Write it again tomorrow Brother after you've had some sleep and are able to defend your points, instead of just writing them...poorly.

No disrespect intended, in fact, just the opposite, by removing your post.

Edited June 2, 2012 by DwayneEMTP

[Bernhard]

OK, you surely have to know your law - good original question, BTW.

May I add some views how I would handle it over here (Germany)?

Here, there is a law, that everyone has a right about his own picture. So you may not take someones random picture and publish it (poster, internet, press) when he's individually recognizable and/or main part of the picture. There are exceptions, if the person is "part of public life" (i.e. a politician or a celebrity), which often leads to court. But here we talk about some random unknown victim happen to be exposed on a public place: no, there is no right to publish a film or picture of the poor fellow showing him/her identifyable (or, other law: publish the name).

This does the trick, because you (as the pictured person or the one responsible for him/her) can prevent picture taking if you can assume, it's for publishing. For what else (youtube in mind) the picture is made then? The photographer can spend the entire time explaining for what he would need the photo until scene is cleared...

So, the law enforcement officer, who is the first line in enforcing the law, HAS the duty to protect the patients privacy - if he doesn't take a step to enforce it, I would make a complain so that next time there wouldn't be a discussion. I'm glad, that here the LEOs wouldn't need such things because they surely would take care about it.

If not the LEO, then I (if other duties dont prevent me from it - as the original poster constructed the case and as supervisor or nontransporting first responder I'm in fact often enough in that position) would explain that briefly and with fitting attitude to the photographer. No violence, though, even if some actions may even be protected by another law (see below), but that's a bumpy road. If nothing else helps I would take all means to identify the photographer to make sure, LEOs later prevent him from publishing.

The other thing is, that the patient has a right (and those who are responsible for him at the moment, if he's in altered mental state) to protect himself even with violence - even his dignity and honor or that of related ones. This, BTW, would cover Dwaynes action on calling his spouse names. However, that's a bumpy road because it needs to be justified (witnesses, recordings?) and could be easily seen as exaggeration. I wouldn't try this on the usual bystander photographer.

So, Germans are by far not so defenseless on their own property, health and honor, even if we aren't allowed to carry guns. Totally legal violence! Watch out!

On the other hand: everyone has a right and even a certain duty (!) to witness a public scene and especially tax money at work. Don't forget two things:

1. Watching an accident scene, even watching someone other in distress or in pain is a form of human caretaking! We're social beeings, it's in our genes to be interested if someone suffers. It then depends a bit what we make out of that: rendering aid (-> original meaning of social behaviour, karma goes up), breaking out in tears (well...at least compassion, an accepted sign of social beeing), breaking out in laughter (may be a sign of some social dysfunction) or beeing the cause of the pain (totally social dysfunctional, consider a career in clandestine agencies). In modern times, EMS and other agencies soon take care of the "rendering aid" part, so all is well organized and all what's left is the single social human beeing, standing at the side watching, now called onlooker.
   
2. We, as EMS (or LEO, FF and else) are public services, more or less. We have to expect that someone is watching our deeds - this someone is the public. And we have to be grateful for that. It's one way to remember us and our superiors doing things correctly, dutyful and orderly. It's a opportunity to present our actions! So, just be sure to have combed hair and your shirt tucked in, when you legally and calmly prevent the random photographer from taking detailed pictures in violating the patient's rights.
   

Filming the general scene would be not prohibited, iif that doesn't get in conflict with the patient's or other's plus even the provider's right of beeing identifyable published.

Two general exceptions to preventing photography/filming action:

• The press has much more granted freedoms. Which is very good. They buy it with the duty to care for protection of persons they report about in the proper way. So they're responsible for blurring pictures or such. A provider on scene, assuming someone is going to publish the material against the public right has it easy with some random bystander, but may not interfer with the press. On the other side, it's not always very clear how to identify press (at leat the journalist organization issues ID cards to listed members), could be a bit tricky in extreme situations. Press tends to behave, since they usually want a good relationship enabling their work - then they willingly accept friendly hints. But they even are allowed to endanger themselves! BTW, there was a well-known incident where press took an active part in a hostage situation, which lead to a very restrict self-control of the press (reference: ).
  
• It could be technically difficult to identify someone taking pictures. With mobile phone cameras almost everyone is able to do it more or less concealed (and publish it in HD right from the scene). So, you (or better the LEOs) can only focus on single ones suspected of filming details or those who really disturb the work.
  

That's the situation here in Germany and all providers should be aware of that. It's regularly covered in magazines, and I happen to teach this topic once in a while to new EMTs (law citation and paragraphs available on request). BTW, the same laws applies to providers filming the scene.

This said, and sorry for the long post, a totally other thought: What would you do, if the patient requests or willingly accepts filming?!? it may be that he/she wants to have something to show to the grandchildren, he/she simply want's to get famous on youtube or he/she doesn't trust you. What would you do then?

On a sidenote, in a recent disaster excercise they implemented an injured victim who constantly filmed other victims with her cell phone. A very nice idea (for excercise setup) and I think this may be the truth in near future (or already is...). I solved the issue by requesting LEOs in the tent, they then cared about the cell phone.

[A Pox On This Place]

I realize those members of the legendary Citizen Information League feel they have the right to record wherever/whenever in public. In Maryland, Illinois and Massachusettes it's illegal to record police operations, even in a public place.

Legality of videotaping a patient being treated in public? I'll leave for a moment the shoddy ethical choice and general asshattedness of such an act and go back to legal constraints. Ever heard of disorderly conduct? Public conduct that tends to anger, annoy or intimidate?

I really have no venom about this topic, I'm just perplexed that ass hats have apologists.

Edited June 2, 2012 by A Pox On This Place

[ERDoc]

I don't think JP is being an apologist for the asshats, he is just pointing out that there is no legal/constitutional grounds on which to prevent the person from being an asshat. There is a big difference between what's ethical/moral and what is legal. Can you site a case or law where photographing/videotaping was considered disorderly conduct?

[emt2359]

I... Massachusettes it's illegal to record police operations, even in a public place.....

This article may clarify your opinion.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-57405594-281/boston-admits-it-cell-phone-photography-is-not-a-crime/

[JPINFV]

You know, you kind of got after Pox for not answering a simple question, yet I feel like I'm making the same point over and over. In this particular instance you use this example despite my stating that neither I, nor my patient are connected to the government in any way, so I'm not clear how the above statement applies.

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.

I get that from you Brother, and respect it. So it seems to be your point that nothing that hasn't already have a specific law made against it is worth defending? If this was your wife or daughter you would simply allow the filming to happen, allow their nude images to be shown on Youtube, and then apologize later saying, "I'm sorry for all of this babe. But I couldn't protect you because no one has made a law about that yet..." Serious question, not sniping.

Or, let's say your daughter falls and accidentally exposes herself in her dress. You notice a man aim his cell phone between her legs, taking pictures while laughing with his buddies. Same question, same non disrespectful tone.

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.

I feel the same about those watching and those filming. I'm disgusted by both when a vulnerable nude person is involved. Again, I'm not sure if you're referring to any of my statement, it's seems not, but just in case, I thought that I made it pretty clear that I didn't care if he was interfering or not, that was simply the excuse that I was going to use to make him stop.

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).

The main difference between tolerating the watchers if necessary and not those filming is that the watchers can do very little damage by watching while those filming can do massive mental and emotional damage to the victim and their family. We are morally and ethically charged with protecting and advocating for our patients except in instances where it might obstruct some pervs voyeuristic evening?

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.

Also, from the quoted articles of the first amendment that I posted, I don't see where he's legally protected to violate this patient in this way. Maybe you could explain that?

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.

You very well might. If a jury of your peers finds that my behavior was outside of the boundaries of what's normally considered morally acceptable in our society, you very well might. I believe that the difference between you and I is that I believe that the government can't make a law for everything that might harm another person. I believe that sometimes we have to stand up and fill the gaps.

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.

It seems to me from your argument that you'd be willing (Again, assuming circumstances that we can't realistically mitigate in another way) to allow this woman while in your care to have her pictures, her privacy, her reputation possibly irreparably damaged (Much worse than a simple assault in my opinion) so as not to chance violating the rights of those that would violate her when helpless. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

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?

Edited June 2, 2012 by JPINFV

[paramedicmike]

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?

Done.

[JPINFV]

I am, and have, and think back on those memories fondly. Maybe you know from my regular postings, maybe not, that it's not my way to look for trouble, but some things simply need to not happen. And if they begin, they need to be stopped right now. Not argued at some later date after more victims have been created.

...

Had we called the police I'm confident that there are no laws against his actions and he would have spent his happy pathetic little life terrorizing other women in the same way. I'm very confident that for at least the next several weeks he had time to consider his actions and decide to be a better person. I'm happy that I could help.

...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?

I can't really see the idea of allowing people to be victimized and then sorting it out later, as opposed to stopping the victimization in the least aggressive way available and then sorting the rest out later. Above I was confident that polite conversation was not going to solve the issue. I am confident that he didn't do the same thing again any time soon. The world is a better place by Dwayne's reckoning.

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).

I don't doubt you for a second. You just seem to believe that everything needs to be disallowed by the government. I don't believe that we are mature enough as a nation or a world to accept that we can stand idly by, watch our friends and neighbors be victimized by douchebags and trust that somehow the government will make it all better.

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.

You and I must define a mob mentality and mob justice differently. I associated myself with no mob in my previous statement but explained my personal choice of theoretical actions. There was no mob in the bar. In each case I acted as an individual.

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.

I'm not sure how to make the argument Brother that the government can't solve every ill. And that every man that chooses to stand up for himself or his family or his neighbors isn't simply a rabid dog because he's acting without proper government sanction.

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.

On one hand you seem to be saying, "I have the right to film the police so as to protect myself from the government!" Yet on the other, "You can't do that because the government hasn't said that it's OK!" That confuses me.

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.

I'm truly grateful that we disagree on this. I think that your attitude is the future, and we need people that think of the future to bring it into being. But your attitude also has people behave as sheep unless backed by a police officer. It demands that you stand by at such moments and spectate pain in the name of 'progress.' I just don't have that in me...

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 don't know how, though I did try, to write statements like the above without having any of it that sounds petty, or intentionally insulting. I will ask that you believe that at no time was that my intention. I have huge respect for your intelligence and your contributions here. It was only my intention to try and give as clear a picture of my 'knuckle dragger' perspective as it relates to your comments as I understand them.

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.

[croaker260]

The LEO isnt dealing with it because he knows what you are learning....that legal or not, right or not, this is a PR and a consitutional minefield..if you get into a confrontation there is no real winner here.

So, consider this:

1- Stable or not?

• If stable...do your exposing in the rig.
  
• If unstable, your not going to be on scene long enough anyway to give the camera-douche much opportunity. And you can always put your plumbers crack between him and the patient while you take care of her.
  

2- No place to move her? Have a couple of FF, LEO's, or what ever hold up a sheet or yellow blanket while you do your deal, then cover her up when your not actively assessing her. Afterall , covering her up is indeed treating for shock.

And in either situation you havent directly confronted the douche, just deprived/limited his the opportunity to add to his spank - bank.

Edited June 2, 2012 by croaker260