Bystanders with Cell phones and taking pictures

[miscusi]

nobody is to interfere with anyone taking pictures, to do so soley because of the picture taking is illegal and will be punished to the full extent of the law. As to the person who deleted the bystander's pictures after illegally taking his phone, shame on you. did your father die defending the consitiution so you can wipe your butt with it ?

If you dont like the constitution, LEAVE MY COUNTRY. and leave the picture takers alone.

[DwayneEMTP]

nobody is to interfere with anyone taking pictures, to do so soley because of the picture taking is illegal and will be punished to the full extent of the law. As to the person who deleted the bystander's pictures after illegally taking his phone, shame on you. did your father die defending the consitiution so you can wipe your butt with it ?

If you dont like the constitution, LEAVE MY COUNTRY. and leave the picture takers alone.

I've asked, over and over, and over, for someone to please quote the part of the constitution that protects this activity. Perhaps if you're going to crow about the first amendment, you should read it.

I've made my argument early in the thread and yet people still claim that this person videoing is constitutionally protected, and that's bullshit, at least the best that I can tell.

You seem to feel very self righteous in your argument, how about if we stop just talking shit and back it up with actual documentation?

[Just Plain Ruff]

Back up where in the constitution it says specifically that his taking pictures is allowed. Specifics my friend. I just looked it up and it aint there.

As for my father dying to defend the constitution, you seem to know a lot about my family but you should really keep your mouth shut.

And for telling me to leave your country, I believe I was here first since im a tad bit older than you, so technically, this is My country you little whippersnapper so if you would like to try to make me leave "your" country, then come on down to Raymore Missouri and try and you will find that it wont be that easy.

Would I take the guys phone again, probably not, it was a spur of the moment thing but now that micsusi or whatever his name is has duuuuuly chastised me and told me to leave the country, I will forever remember that by taking the camera and deleting the photos made this a violation of that guys first amendment rights and for that my fellow EMTCITIERS I must atone and move to Mazurkistan to start my life anew.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[akflightmedic]

Does no one care to engage in extreme tangents and the psyche of the fellow man? Seriously...the question is...How far would YOU go to protect your patient's privacy knowing that while working in Florida (assume you work in this state), you could be shot and killed if someone felt threatened after you touch them. Your touch could be perceived as a shove or a real threat...

Where is the line drawn? How much violence is enough to protect your patient?

[Just Plain Ruff]

I would not engage in violence to protect the privacy of my patient. No patient is worth my life anc maybe by taking that guys phone that could have been construed as violent but I dont think so.

AK, I have always been a privacy advocate. The rebel in me would like to level the guy taking picture, then take his camera and stomp on it and shove it down his throat but the reasonable person in me knows that its improper to do all that.

Especially in florida with floridas stand your ground law, its insane to fet in a fight over some asshole taking pictures of your patient.

I think the lesson learned here in this entire scenario is to cover your patient to head off this exact type of situation.

Would I take the phone again? Probably not, but who knows. Situation by situation but you have to choose you battles wisely.

This has been a great thread.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[DwayneEMTP]

Man, fair question ak....

And I guess if we are to follow the tenet of safety first then no violence is the correct answer.

In fact, like all punishment, even addressing the issue if you don't have the proper support to do so isn't realistic and is likely to create a bunch of negative outcomes.

If I have a patient damaged enough to trauma stip then they are certainly too sick for me to risk ending up injured myself, or even rolling around on the ground messing with a camera.

[JPINFV]

I've asked, over and over, and over, for someone to please quote the part of the constitution that protects this activity. Perhaps if you're going to crow about the first amendment, you should read it.

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.

Where is the line drawn? How much violence is enough to protect your patient?

Well, Florida v Zimmerman is going to test the protections of Florida's Stand Your Ground law rather extensively.

Edited June 4, 2012 by JPINFV

[croaker260]

WOW, this thread has deteriorated faster than a bacterial meningitis patient on immunosuppressants.

Lots og good information available here, and a lots of chest thumping and name calling and childish dialog too.

Such a shame.

Anyway, I think my solution (below) is adequate for this very common situation, and it doesn't involve the SCOTUS to determine constitutionality.

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.

[emtdennis]

_{Can of Krylon and a size 11 boot, forget legal mumbo jumbo and political correctness!! (Sorry it's those deep in the back of my mind thoughts rearing their heads of what I would really like to do to people with no respect for the patient)!}

[akflightmedic]

Well, Florida v Zimmerman is going to test the protections of Florida's Stand Your Ground law rather extensively.

That may be, but in the meantime what is your opinion of where to draw the line? For all those raging medics who encounter this situation BEFORE the court makes a ruling...