Bystanders with Cell phones and taking pictures

[DwayneEMTP]

You know JP, it's disappointing that you've continued to consider this a constitutional right despite being challenged many times, at least by me and it seems others, to prove that point when non government entities are involved.

Is it really your intention to simply ignore the challenge and continue to parrot the same crap over and over?

Is that what they're teaching you in that fancy school of yours? When you can't validate to try simply bury your opponents in repetition?

[emt2359]

My iPhone saves all the pics I take to the "Cloud" within minutes so I will always have a copy of my pics even if they get "accidentally deleted" while evidence is being processed.

[JPINFV]

You know JP, it's disappointing that you've continued to consider this a constitutional right despite being challenged many times, at least by me and it seems others, to prove that point when non government entities are involved.

Is it really your intention to simply ignore the challenge and continue to parrot the same crap over and over?

Is that what they're teaching you in that fancy school of yours? When you can't validate to try simply bury your opponents in repetition?

...and every time I've responded with court cases, it's dismissed because, "Well, they didn't directly discuss private entities." I could post the same set of court cases again (which goes well beyond the Boston ruling that directly discussed public employees, but which I feel can easily be extrapolated), but it's just going to be ignored again. So, were you taught to ask the same question over and over again until you get an answer you want and claim that anything else is ignoring the question?

Similarly, every time I've asked, "What law gives you the right to stop the person filming?" it hasn't been answered. So, what law gives you the right to engage in physical or legal action to stop someone from filming?

So here we go, readers digest version from an earlier post.

"There is an undoubted right to gather news "from any source by means within the law,"

-Houchins v KQED

That's a copy paste from post 83 and was never addressed. There's more there besides that one.

Edited June 16, 2012 by JPINFV

[JPINFV]

Is that what they're teaching you in that fancy school of yours?

I'm also not going to let this gem pass as it wasn't the first time in this thread that I've been accused of ivory tower thinking.

How dare you? No, serious, how dare you? This isn't about fancy schools. This is about the rule of law. This is about the fact that just because we find it distasteful (because, as I said before, I agree that it's distasteful and a douche bag action) doesn't mean I get to push my views on everyone else. Furthermore, for how risk adverse EMS is, and rightfully so, I find it amazing that everyone seems so willing to put their life, liberty, family, and income on the line is to assault some jackass with a camera. What's even more sickening is that we're expecting someone else (the police) to do so, even though they'd incur greater civil and criminal penalty since they're enforcing your whim with their badge.

But I digress. If it's my "fancy schooling" that taught me that just because someone else is a douche bag that I shouldn't lower myself to their level, then so be it (I like to think my parents had something to do with that). If it was my "fancy schooling" that taught me that just because I disagreed with someone engaging in a legal action I need to physically accost them or run crying to the police, then so be it. Finally, if it was my "fancy schooling" that taught me to read (because, again, I've posted numerous court cases, and the discussion in the Boston ruling regarding the legal background for their decision is pertinent even if EMS providers aren't always public employees, but I guess you didn't read that section because, well, reading is hard?) and that I shouldn't ask the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over again for no better reason than I didn't like the answer, then again, so be it.

...but I guess the answer is to be a thug (because your opinion on right and wrong is the only one that matters). So, fine, want to be a douche bag (like the person filming)? Go ahead. However when you be a douche bag to the wrong person with a camera and they take you to civil and criminal court because you decided to smack them, I hope you have a good lawyer on retainer because you're going to need him, and I hope when your family is living off the dole, you remember to tell them about how glorious you were smacking down some idiot with a camera, because that's obviously better than feeding your family.

Edited June 16, 2012 by JPINFV

[nypamedic43]

I've read and reread the cases posted and I have read everyone's opinion.

The bottom line is this....the patient shouldn't have been exposed anywhere other than the ambulance. Packaging of a trauma patient is going to be I the public eye, there is no question of that. But exposing a patient where God and everybody else can see shouldn't be done. As for my previous post of asking for the phone and then snapping it in half, I probably wouldnt do that. Just becaus ei am busy with the patient.

This thread has really been derailed. 2 parties in particular leveling questions that have been partially ignored. Posted case law that can be construed as pretty generic but never the less it is up to interpretation. What I interpret it to be, may be completely different than what JP and Dwayne interpret it to be.

We are way off in the ditch here people. Everyone enjoys a good debate but to be honest, I am no longer interested in this thread because it has become a pissing match. Each trying to convince the other that they aren't reading or just ignoring what's been said over and over and over again.

Agree to disagree and stop pissing in each others Cheerios. Dwayne, I love ya to pieces but ya gotta let it go. JP, I dont know you but you're pretty gungho on this, to the point of distraction. I appreciate the 2 of you more than you know but I've lost interest here because nothing new has been posted and no new opinions have been verbalized. It's become redundant to the point where it's a "who" category now.

[JMH]

For me, if the patient is sick or injured enough or I suspect such, that I feel a pressing need to cut off their clothes, I'm moving toward the bus after whatever needs to be done on scene is done and will continue in the bus while moving toward the ER. Patient privacy/safety secured.

Regards, Jim

[DwayneEMTP]

I'm also not going to let this gem pass as it wasn't the first time in this thread that I've been accused of ivory tower thinking...

And I believe rightfully so. The attitude of "People should be allowed to suffer at the hands of douche bags if the govt isn't there to protect them or have created special protections for those that would choose to intervene" is only espoused, in my experience, by those that have always been privileged to hide behind others that will do violence on their behalf, allowing the hiders to pretend to be separate and/or above the acts of violence that protect them.

...How dare you? No, serious, how dare you? This isn't about fancy schools...

I agree completely. And I'm sorry that I said that. I've been frustrated by what appeared to me to be an obvious attempt to avoid what also appears to be to me a salient point of the conversation and stooped to trying to push buttons. You didn't deserve that comment and I wish I'd not have made it. I sincerely apologize for it.

...This is about the rule of law. This is about the fact that just because we find it distasteful (because, as I said before, I agree that it's distasteful and a douche bag action) doesn't mean I get to push my views on everyone else...

As I stated before, your argument only holds if we wrongly assume that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are absolute freedoms, and as I've stated before, though you chose not to address it, that's not the case.

"Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".^[1][2]"

...But I digress. If it's my "fancy schooling" that taught me that just because someone else is a douche bag that I shouldn't lower myself to their level, then so be it (I like to think my parents had something to do with that). If it was my "fancy schooling" that taught me that just because I disagreed with someone engaging in a legal action I need to physically accost them or run crying to the police, then so be it...

Isn't running crying to the police what you've stated all along is the correct thing to do if we find a situation untenable? That, or passively allowing attrocities to occur in our presence in the name of moral, legal and intellectual superiority?

As with the paragraph preceding this one, you're arguments are all about what's best for you. And with most that make such an argument the decision to choose impotence is most often loudly and vehemently defended. Then the attempt is made to show how the world is made better by that impotence. My life, and therefore my arguments are about 'us.' I've made it clear that I've rethought my answers regarding touch this man for his cell phone, but the argument can be extrapolated without significantly changing the moral parameters.

...Finally, if it was my "fancy schooling" that taught me to read (because, again, I've posted numerous court cases, and the discussion in the Boston ruling regarding the legal background for their decision is pertinent even if EMS providers aren't always public employees, but I guess you didn't read that section because, well, reading is hard?) and that I shouldn't ask the same question over and over and over and over and over and over and over again for no better reason than I didn't like the answer, then again, so be it...

I didn't read all of the court cases. I wasted my time with the first few, showed you the respect to take the time to explain that they weren't relative to the discussion that I believed you and I were having, only to have my comments followed by more cases that were little different than the first. Perhaps you believe that I've nothing better to do than follow such rabbit trails all day. But I do.

And if you believe that I've spent the time creating my comments because I didn't like the previous answers, then perhaps it shouldn't be my reading and comprehension abilities that are in questions.

...but I guess the answer is to be a thug (because your opinion on right and wrong is the only one that matters). So, fine, want to be a douche bag (like the person filming)? Go ahead. However when you be a douche bag to the wrong person with a camera and they take you to civil and criminal court because you decided to smack them, I hope you have a good lawyer on retainer because you're going to need him, and I hope when your family is living off the dole, you remember to tell them about how glorious you were smacking down some idiot with a camera, because that's obviously better than feeding your family...

And here, as above, you show your hypocrisy. You claim to be above it all, and yet at the first offense you've turned to aggressive talk, to insulting tones. It took only one mention of 'your fancy school' to get you to verbally drop to, and possibly below my level. What do you make of that?

This seems to have created two camps. One that says that the injured, defenseless person should heal to have themselves and their family molested with the images of their pain on Youtube because the government didn't come to save them or allow for protections so that other would feel safe doing so.

The other camp seeming to have come from a different world, such as the world that I've grown up in and lived in until only recently where people MUST care for each other, defend themselves and their neighbors at times because crowing of morally superior stance of active impotence doesn't really keep people safe when the rubber meets the road.

You would call me a thug and douche bag for my thinking, and I would call you a coward for yours. Probably we're both right, and both wrong to varying degrees. The thing that resonates most with me is that I've never heard anyone take your stance in the inner city where they have to fight to get to school. Nor in the war zone where they have to bleed to defend their families and communities. Not even in American rural areas where legally sanctioned help can be very far away. I've only heard this opinion come from those that turn on their TVs at night to see the violence all around them, committed by those acting on their behalf, yet somehow pretend to be morally and intellectually above it, all the while ignoring the fact that it's their privilege, not their actions, that have allowed them to take such a passive stance.

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." Mahatma Gandhi.

[JPINFV]

Part 1 of 2... too many quotes.

I'll post part 2 after someone else replies so it doesn't break this post when it's merged.

And I believe rightfully so. The attitude of "People should be allowed to suffer at the hands of douche bags if the govt isn't there to protect them or have created special protections for those that would choose to intervene" is only espoused, in my experience, by those that have always been privileged to hide behind others that will do violence on their behalf, allowing the hiders to pretend to be separate and/or above the acts of violence that protect them.

The problem is where do we stop? If a bunch of racists decide to exercise their freedom of speech and assembly, do I get to silence them because I don't agree with their message? Do I get to silence people of the opposing political party because I find their message distasteful? If my neighbor decides to play his radio too loud and refuses to turn it down, do I now have the right to break it instead of engaging the police to enforce local noise ordinances? Yes, it's the slippery slope argument, but when dealing with something so subjective, it's hard to say where the argument that, "I should take ___ into my own hands" should end, especially when we're dealing with an enumerated right that's being engaged in public.

I agree completely. And I'm sorry that I said that. I've been frustrated by what appeared to me to be an obvious attempt to avoid what also appears to be to me a salient point of the conversation and stooped to trying to push buttons. You didn't deserve that comment and I wish I'd not have made it. I sincerely apologize for it.

Apology accepted. I'm not attempting to ignore arguments, but I feel this is something that's been asked and answered several times.

As I stated before, your argument only holds if we wrongly assume that freedom of the press and freedom of speech are absolute freedoms, and as I've stated before, though you chose not to address it, that's not the case.

I agree that they aren't absolute. However in general the limitations are present either because a public good is being used (i.e. airwaves, which is why over-the-air broadcasts have much greater content limitations than cable channels), safety ("FIRE!" in a crowed theater), or because they are false (libel or slander). You don't have the right to limit someone from publishing negative stories about you, however you have the right to limit someone from publishing false stories. However even that is limited when it comes to obvious parodies.

"Article 19 of the ICCPR states that "[e]veryone shall have the right to hold opinions without interference" and "everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice". Article 19 goes on to say that the exercise of these rights carries "special duties and responsibilities" and may "therefore be subject to certain restrictions" when necessary "[f]or respect of the rights or reputation of others" or "[f]or the protection of national security or of public order (order public), or of public health or morals".^[1][2]"

There's a few problems though. International conventions are always going to be subservient to the Constitution when it comes to mandating and protecting action in this country. I wouldn't want to go into a court and cite a UN treaty as why I should be found not guilty for assault or vandalism. Furthermore, many of those just aren't applicable to other parts of the law. A traffic infraction in California is a criminal offense (infractions being below misdemeanors, California Penal Code 16), and are held in a criminal court specifically set aside for traffic infractions, but I don't have a right to a public defender in violation of Article 14 (from the Wiki article, "establishes rights to a speedy trial, to counsel, against self-incrimination,").

Furthermore, (again, from the Wiki article) the United States put several limitations on it, "included in the Senate's ratification was the declaration that "the provisions of Article 1 through 27 of the Covenant are not self-executing",^[75] and in a Senate Executive Report stated that the declaration was meant to "clarify that the Covenant will not create a private cause of action in U.S. Courts.""

So we said, "Yep, we agree with it, but we don't want it to change how we do business."

Isn't running crying to the police what you've stated all along is the correct thing to do if we find a situation untenable? That, or passively allowing attrocities to occur in our presence in the name of moral, legal and intellectual superiority?

Sorry, there's a typo there. It should read, "I disagreed with someone engaging in a legal action I don't need to physically accost them or run crying to the police, then so be it..."

As with the paragraph preceding this one, you're arguments are all about what's best for you. And with most that make such an argument the decision to choose impotence is most often loudly and vehemently defended. Then the attempt is made to show how the world is made better by that impotence. My life, and therefore my arguments are about 'us.' I've made it clear that I've rethought my answers regarding touch this man for his cell phone, but the argument can be extrapolated without significantly changing the moral parameters.

What are the limitations on this. I disagree with the Casey Anthony decision, therefore I should engage in street justice or I'm impotent? I've already said multiple times that things like holding up sheets or moving to the ambulance are preferred and should be engaged, but I can do that without getting into a measuring contest with some dude with a camera.

...and yes, the argument is in large part about what's best for me. I don't plan on going to prison, jail, or court because someone's taking a picture, especially when options that don't involve me risking jail, my future family's well-being, my job, or my license is available. We don't enter dangerous scenes (scene safety) because we don't want to risk our job, license, or health, but we're willing to surrender it for much less? I put someone's life well above someone's dignity, and if I'm not willing to risk those things to make a calculated risk to save a life, why would I be willing to risk those things to keep some creep from getting a picture? ...and don't get me wrong, given an appropriate risk vs benefit situation, I'm willing to risk my life to save a life, but that doesn't involve, say, walking into a leaking chemical plant without protective gear.

I didn't read all of the court cases. I wasted my time with the first few, showed you the respect to take the time to explain that they weren't relative to the discussion that I believed you and I were having, only to have my comments followed by more cases that were little different than the first. Perhaps you believe that I've nothing better to do than follow such rabbit trails all day. But I do.

...and that's why I limited the Boston case to, "Here, read these 3-4 pages where they specifically address the 1st Amendment issue." The problem is that if you end up in court those cases becomes incredibly important. Heck, any discussion of the legal ramification of enumerated rights without discussing case law is a waste of time because often the issues being addressed are already answered. For example, it would be easy to argue that you have to work for a news company to be covered under the freedom of the press, but that's not what the courts have ruled, and that takes precedent over all else in a discussion like this.

And if you believe that I've spent the time creating my comments because I didn't like the previous answers, then perhaps it shouldn't be my reading and comprehension abilities that are in questions.

...but you keep asking the same question and accusing me of not answering it because I'm answering with court cases where the issues have been addressed because, agree or disagree, those court cases are what's going to end up deciding a court case.

Edited June 16, 2012 by JPINFV

[JPINFV]

Post 2 of 2

And here, as above, you show your hypocrisy. You claim to be above it all, and yet at the first offense you've turned to aggressive talk, to insulting tones. It took only one mention of 'your fancy school' to get you to verbally drop to, and possibly below my level. What do you make of that?

Read the rest of the thread. I've spent 12 pages now arguing that "Just because you disagree with a legal action doesn't mean you get to force the guy to stop" and having half the posts disagreeing with me throw some sort of insult to the point that I've placed one person (Pox on this Place) on my ignore list (which is a short list of people like Vent Medic) and it's a wonder that I'm starting to get aggressive when people start going down that road? Regardless, I stand by the fact that just because someone else is acting like a douche bag doesn't mean that any of us should act like a douche bag back, and when one of us acts like a douche bag that we should be prepared to face the consequences.

So, let me have 2 or 3 other people spend several pages abusing you, but hey, now it's my turn and how dare you get aggressive against the fact that now I made a mistake and decided to take the same tact. After all, after 12 pages, you should be able to take 1 more post of people arguing that you're some sort of Occupy hippie communist ACLU pinko liberal because you recognize the importance of freedom of the press."

So, yes. I'm coming out and saying it as blatantly as I can after 12 pages of people thinking that just because I recognize the difference between a legal right and morally/ethically right (judgement) and people confusing the two. Engaging in a legal right can be a douche bag action. However, just because someone else is acting like a douche bag doesn't give me the moral or ethical right to lower myself to his level. Acting like a douche bag is always morally and ethically wrong.

This seems to have created two camps. One that says that the injured, defenseless person should heal to have themselves and their family molested with the images of their pain on Youtube because the government didn't come to save them or allow for protections so that other would feel safe doing so.

The other camp seeming to have come from a different world, such as the world that I've grown up in and lived in until only recently where people MUST care for each other, defend themselves and their neighbors at times because crowing of morally superior stance of active impotence doesn't really keep people safe when the rubber meets the road.

You do realize that some of the most powerful images are of people suffering? I hope you're outraged over the fact that the famous napalm girl photo got a Pulitzer.

You would call me a thug and douche bag for my thinking, and I would call you a coward for yours. Probably we're both right, and both wrong to varying degrees. The thing that resonates most with me is that I've never heard anyone take your stance in the inner city where they have to fight to get to school. Nor in the war zone where they have to bleed to defend their families and communities. Not even in American rural areas where legally sanctioned help can be very far away. I've only heard this opinion come from those that turn on their TVs at night to see the violence all around them, committed by those acting on their behalf, yet somehow pretend to be morally and intellectually above it, all the while ignoring the fact that it's their privilege, not their actions, that have allowed them to take such a passive stance.

Are there better terms for someone willing to resort to violence to deprive someone else of their enumerated rights? Is there better terms for someone who wants to take action outside of the legal system for no better reason than they disagree? Here, let me smash someone's radio because they're playing it too loud. After all, why should I run to the police when I can handle it myself?

So apparently you can only hold a valid opinion if you have to fight gangs to get to school, choose to live in the middle of no where, or join the military? What sort of special wisdom is handed down in basic training, by choosing to live in the middle of no where, or by living in a gang infested slum? Might is right?

"It is better to be violent, if there is violence in our hearts, than to put on the cloak of nonviolence to cover impotence." Mahatma Gandhi.

Cute. I guess next time I get mad at someones driving I should get all road ragey on them and break their mirror or windshield. After all, I'd hate to follow the law and appear impotent over their poor driving.

Edited June 17, 2012 by JPINFV

[chbare]

Okay, at this point this thread has probably run it's useful course. IHMO.