What do you all think of this?
Printed From: Tippmann Paintball
Category: News And Views
Forum Name: Thoughts and Opinions
Forum Description: Got something you need to say?
URL: http://www.tippmannsports.com/forum/wwf77a/forum_posts.asp?TID=187308
Printed Date: 12 January 2026 at 4:38pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.04 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: What do you all think of this?
Posted By: Flurry
Subject: What do you all think of this?
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 4:49am
|
I am a Police Officer, I am also on Crash Rescue. I have responded to many incidents where people have been traped in their vehicels that had passed on, or were in real bad shape. The idea of finding someone recording the event is..... Where does the press find these people. If you watch the longer video, you can hear someone laughing.
http://statter911.com/2010/12/07/must-see-video-when-public-safety-officials-decide-what-the-public-can-see-a-connecticut-trooper-turned-censor/ - http://statter911.com/2010/12/07/must-see-video-when-public-safety-officials-decide-what-the-public-can-see-a-connecticut-trooper-turned-censor/
I say good job to the trooper. I know that there is a freedom of speech, but there are times to have respect. ------------- It sucks being antisocial alone. |
Replies:
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 5:02am
|
I agree with the copper 100%. It wouldn't even occur to me that this needed to be filmed. If it's newsworthy then write a story. The cop summed it up well "does this look like something that needs to be filmed?" The press and the free speech brigade seem to think they are entitled to do what they want. It seems childish to defend their actions with "But im allowed and you cant stop me" In this case common decency should take priority. |
Posted By: choopie911
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 5:06am
| I'm fine with them reporting on the event, however I agree you don't need to film someone dying. |
Posted By: Hysteria
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 5:16am
What a douche. He's just a photographer doing his job? Last time I checked recording with camcorder =/= photography. The trooper was unprofessional? I imagine it is rather hard to keep one's composure when dealing with inconsiderate morons just after seeing some lady's brain matter all over the inside of a car. I'm usually the last person to side with the police, but this is just ridiculous. |
Jackass on the site wrote:Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 6:12am
|
From a professional standpoint; owning a recording device of some form doesn't make you a photographer. Having a mix of skills and knowledge to be able to capture moments in time, AND the tact to know when it is appropriate to do so, makes you a photographer. This is simply a douche with a camera.
------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 7:12am
|
I've responded to a few crashes myself when I was an active volunteer, and the idea of someone filming that stuff bothers the hell out of me. The trooper was NOT unprofessional, the d-bag with the camera was disgusting. Aftermath? fine. But video taping a fatal crash is in really bad taste. ------------- ? |
Posted By: Reb Cpl
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 7:20am
Yes. This. 100% ------------- ? |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 9:31am
|
One asks about the Hindenburg video or the video of JFK.
On the other hand are there not laws governing who or what can be filmed? And what can be released to the public? How can people release footage of people who have not agreed and can not agree to them being filmed? A car accident is not news. This is techno-rubber necking. KBK |
Posted By: ParielIsBack
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 9:40am
I like this description. ------------- BU Engineering 2012 |
Posted By: RoboCop
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 9:49am
|
I believe the law states that anyone can be filmed in a public place without the given consent by the filmees. Public roads means this person is able to film there. Agreed with the cop, but this reminds me of the Olympic luge accident. The pictures and video released are kinda disturbing yet still get put out on the internet. |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 9:52am
As far as I understand, only audio has to be consented to. ------------- 
|
Posted By: Flurry
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 12:15pm
|
In the general public there is no expectation of privacy. But if you are standing around on the border of a emergency scene....that becomes a little less public. They brought up the 911 and the JFK videos. The JFK was being recorded prior to the shooting. The 911 videos was a huge national incident. Both of those videos were used by Law Enforcement and Govt. Agencies after the fact. There is a time and a place for recording things. When rescue workers are working to save a life....IS NOT ONE OF THOSE TIMES. ------------- It sucks being antisocial alone. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 12:33pm
Depends on the state, same with video, but the law almost always leans in the favor of not needing permission to film or record in a public space.
|
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 12:41pm
|
I don't disagree that perhaps there wasn't a need to film a fatal car crash.
However, on the same hand, I do believe the cop was a little douchy and didn't necessarily handle this in the best possible way. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 12:45pm
|
Also, I'll just say this as someone who worked the breaking news beat for a while: Until someone puts up a police line, I'm going to wander in with camera/recorder up. You're free to kick me out all you want once a police line is up. But, until then, I'm capturing what I get sent out to capture. Especially if it is in the public arena, where the law sides on those doing the filming, shooting, recording, etc. And the law works like that for a reason. When you start trying to limit that stuff, you get an awfully detrimental chilling effect. Now, later on, deciding if something is inappropriate to be put in print, TV, online, etc., that's up to me and an editor, and personally - I've posted this a few times here before - I tend to lean more on the side of modesty with images. I only allowed blood once on the cover of the paper, and I never once put a distinguishable body part on the cover. That was my rule. If you can tell what it is, don't run it. I know it seems coldhearted and ruthless to film/record/shoot something like this. And to some extent, it is. There is a reason that nobody stays on the accident/crime beat for too long. One of my very good friends is working at a paper now doing just that, and it's rough. But, in the city she works in, she's got a good working relationship with the emergency workers. They know that if they let her into the area, the paper will show good restraint in dealing with what ends up being displayed. |
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 1:20pm
|
"all you people, unless you have tickets for this event. get outta here" What does that mean? Tickets for this event? Not knowing what hes talking about(ticket wise) he seems as disrespectful as the dude filming it, If not more. Is tickets for this event some sort of slang? For volunteer rescuers or something? |
Posted By: Flurry
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 3:03pm
|
Put yourself in the Troopers boots, you are witness to the unhappyness of all that is going on. You are the first to respond to a crash where someone is busted up, or more than likely in this case burning alive. Then you have some people laughing and holding a video camera. You can tell by the tone of the troopers voice that he is not as happy go lucky as the camera man. I know that I have been angered by people standing around watching as I am cutting a car off a person. Then afterwords to have pictures and comments show up on the nextday's paper or news. Most of the comments that pop up on the paper or news website telling the responders how they "civilain" could do the job better, among other things....... Almost every rescue responder has wanted to run the rubber-neckers away from these things. I'm not just talken police, ambulance, fire all of us. The ticket for the event thing.... The press = spectators watching the event = event like a football game. you need a ticket to get into a football game. Respect goes many ways Little Devil. Was the Trooper paying more respect ot the victim or to the press? Who deserves the respect at that exact moment, the people that were just laughing or the person in the car?
Agent - I know what you are saying. But on a scene like this where the fire isn't even out, and the ambulance is just pulling up? ------------- It sucks being antisocial alone. |
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 3:07pm
It's part of the job. A very grim job, but a job none the less. |
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 3:23pm
|
Look, I agree the cop had a tough job there. I can't imagine, I fix electronic components for a living, not dealing with dead people.
But, having just watched the video again, I heard nothing to automatically assume that the guy with the camera was laughing or making light of the scene. I heard no laughter, the camera wasn't shaking as though he was....I heard no wisecracks. He may have been a guy who honestly thought it was his journalistic duty to film it. The two officers who came over to break up group came over with an attitude. I understand they witnessed something traumatic. But this is something they should have better training for...they can't go off half cocked all the time...this is the age of citizen journalism, and officers will get in trouble when the public sees cops getting out of line on Youtube. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 3:31pm
Its not the first video, its the second one. Also, why is it always the camera guys who are innocent? |
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 3:37pm
Ah... I didn't see the second video. I'm not saying the camera guy is innocent. But in any case of this, the person with the camera and the internet connection will get the story out to the public first, and it will be his angle that is seen first. That's just how it goes. If there had been a police cruiser facing the group with the dashboard mounted camera recording, and it turned out to be a rowdy crowd of rubberneckers pointing and laughing, you can bet that public sentiment would be stronger for the police. (edit to add quote...top of the page curse) |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 3:38pm
They aren't guilty of breaking any laws. -------------
|
Posted By: Flurry
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 3:40pm
|
Time for laughing 1:05 and 2:54 It sounds like it was someone else that was speaking to the camera man. That was my mistake, Listening closer it sounds like another person doing the snickering. And Shub if you can find some real training that is out there for better dealing with the emotions of watching someone die a death like that. I doubt that training is the issue there. Troopers are people too, we have emotions. I FEEL that there was a level of respect for the victim in this case. Yes the trooper could have handled this better, but this got the point across. I doubt that this trooper acts like that all of the time. I wasn't saying that the "Press" broke any laws. This is more of a moral / respect thing. There are times where I would love to show the press photos of what happens when you drink and drive. ....------------- It sucks being antisocial alone. |
Posted By: little devil
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 3:43pm
I find that disgusting. So not only is this woman's death now filmed. Her children and relatives can always remember the police officer calling it an event people should be showing tickets for. As though you can buy the car crash pic pak. Allowing you 2 wreck shots! Is this not where the Police line comes into play. Instead of freaking out. You direct them how many yards down the road and tape it off. But I dunno. Also the dude laughing and the dude filming a 2 different people. |
Posted By: Rofl_Mao
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 3:43pm
Neither are the emergency workers. |
Posted By: Shub
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 3:50pm
Training probably wasn't the right word. But the police have to stay rational when they exhibit authority. This guy wasn't doing anything wrong in a legal sense, from what we can tell. The cop had no cause to bust up the group, particularly with the attitude he showed. |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 4:03pm
As government employees, violating the right to free press. As citizens, older examples have them committing battery. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 4:19pm
|
There is really no need to film for 3 minutes. He was obviously very close since he was directly next to the ambulance. The police office may not be right, but I agree with him.
------------- Que pasa? 
|
Posted By: stratoaxe
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 4:55pm
|
Even cops lose control of emotions.
Even if he was wrong to do what he did, nobody was hurt, and no freedoms were permanently damaged. If someone is taser'd or shot I'm the first one to say cops should know better...but they're not stone gargoyles, they're people, and they have their emotional limits just like we do. I think that, given the nature of their job, they can be forgiven for occasionally stepping on some toes. |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 5:18pm
Since when does freedom of press/speech have a time limit? (barring venues that attract a lot of people thus needing permits)
Like the other post above says, they can be forgiven for losing it from time to time. -------------
|
Posted By: jmac3
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 5:21pm
Didn't say it had a time limit. Just saying 3 minutes isn't necessary. Even if he was working for news which tends to show a 10 second clip about 10 times in a segment. How much footage of a burning car do you need? ------------- Que pasa?
|
Posted By: impulse418
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 8:30pm
No.
|
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 8:40pm
Since when are our basic freedoms limited based on the need of the acting parties to exercise them?
-------------
|
Posted By: Gatyr
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 10:02pm
I would imagine it was just his coy way of saying "get the hell out of here." It's obvious that nobody would have tickets, so that disqualifies everyone from being able to stay. I see nothing disrespectful about it unless he actually considered it a show (which is doubtful for a variety of reasons). ------------- 
|
Posted By: Magoo
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 10:12pm
Brotha man, you be getting this ALL wrong... Like Gatyr said, it basically means amscray. |
Posted By: scotchyscotch
Date Posted: 09 December 2010 at 10:21pm
|
I would say the cop shares your sentiments little devil. Obviously they wont have tickets as it is not an event and as such should not have spectators. Honestly people need to man up. There was no need for them to be filming and they were told to take themselves elsewhere. I'm sure faced with a situation like that you wouldn't appreciate some idiot criticising your actions while they stand there not helping with someone dying in front of them. Ohh boohoo your "rights" were violated? Get a grip. |
Posted By: tallen702
Date Posted: 10 December 2010 at 3:06am
The other events in question were normal events that turned sour and were caught on film. Brady and Reagan being shot is another example of this. Pulling out your handy-cam/flip-cam/cellphone and recording something like this after the fact, when someone is clearly dead/dying is nothing more than pandering to the weak minded masses who not only have no respect for their fellow man, but have no real concept of what it means to lose a loved one in a tragic incident. While I understand that freedom of the press is one of those rights which must not be infringed for fear of others falling after, there is a certain limit to what counts as the press, and what counts as freedom. It seems to me that you could hook magnets up to Edward R. Murrow's grave and use the electricity generated by him spinning in his grave to power a sizable city in this day and age. Whatever happened to the system of ethics with which reporters, photographers, and journalists used to adhere to? Has yellow journalism and this decision to appeal to the lowest class of people possible really permeated the news and information world so thoroughly? ------------- <Removed overly wide sig. Tsk, you know better.> |
Posted By: Kayback
Date Posted: 10 December 2010 at 7:32am
I think you missed the boat. What the cop meant was if you need to be there - like you have a ticket, you can be there if not then like a non ticket holder at an event, go away. People that need to be there? Emergency personell. A guy with a camcorder is not needed on the sceen of an accident, especially one that is still unfolding. I'm not saying don't film it, I'm saying stand over THERE and use that 800x zoom your camera has so the people trying to do their job can do it, especially when said job revolves around trying to stop someone dying. When your job revolves around getting grusome footage, you can stay the hell out of the way. What you should do is then show some decency and not flog the footage to a news source or put it on the internet. The cop's interference hardly justifies this as news. It IS more pertinent than the crash itself, but only just. KBK |
Posted By: __sneaky__
Date Posted: 10 December 2010 at 10:28am
|
Honestly, I think you guys are looking too hard into this one. Did the guy have the right to video the crash? Yeah, he did. Should he have been a decent human being and acted with some tact and dignity? Yes, he should have.
The right to do something =/= the right thing to do. I don't blame the officer. I'd be appalled at that kind of behavior too. He is a human being, he didn't assault the man with the camera, from what I saw; he simply got upset to see someone acting like such a douche and tried to get him to stop. Had he tazed and arrested the guy, I'd be all up in arms too, but in this situation, I'd have done the same thing. ------------- "I AM a crossdresser." -Reb Cpl Forum Vice President RIP T&O Forum |
Posted By: Tolgak
Date Posted: 10 December 2010 at 10:48am
There is no limit to who is press. The day we start legislating who falls under "press" is the day the 1st Amendment becomes an awfully subjective law. Same thing goes for defining our freedom of speech. It's been well established that we have to be very careful about what types of speech are limited, and it's usually that which has a clear, direct, and strongly negative impact on specific people. People have gotten more sensitive to things over the years and it reflects in our decreased tolerance to them. It's very easy to say "well [situation A] is bad enough!" When that happens, the bar is lowered. The next month, [situation B] comes around. It's not as bad as A, but it crosses somebody's threshold. When we make it law, it becomes the new standard for legality. Think of what happened with our school system regarding the view on weapons. One day in 1st grade, I brought a toy gun to school. I had no idea how sensitive it was to do such a thing, I was a kid and we liked playing cops and robbers. I was told to put it away and the issue was done with. Through the years, punishments for this idea got worse. This year, a kindergartner got suspended for making the shape of a gun with his hand and pointing it at someone else.
Should only people we deem ethical be allowed to film things in public? Who gets to set that standard?
1) He was beyond the ambulance 2) He was on the other side of the guard rail 3) He was out of the way of anybody walking through 4) There was no emergency activity (as far as we can tell) anywhere near the camera.
I agree, but that doesn't make the photographer guilty of anything. Worthy of scorn, at the most.
Agreed on this too. This goes back to what I said about how reacting to things changes our threshold of tolerance. Newsworthiness went from having people attack cameramen to this guy being vented at. -------------
|
Posted By: agentwhale007
Date Posted: 10 December 2010 at 10:51am
If you want to the truth, I don't think that they ever existed. I think they're a revisionist-historical construct made by the journalists and general folk of today. Journalists have pretty much always behaved like this, as far as breaking news, accidents and crime scenes are concerned. As a matter of fact, we're probably in the ethical renaissance, as in the 50s or 60s, the camera man would have had a spare police uniform in his car he would have put on first and walked on into the scene. And if you're going to bring up Murrow, you should note that he was the early television king of one-sided attacks. His famed war against McCarthy was just that. People complain and scream when the same thing happens today and scream bias. And, usually, bring up the name of Murrow. Go figure.
|