Should the Seaworld trainer death video be released?

[mike_s]

I don't think photos of the autopsy of an accident victim vs. the video of how the victim got into the accident is a good reference at all.

I disagree.

in both cases the families chose not to have their family members photos after their deaths released.

this isn't just about the video of it happening, but the "crime scene" (for lack of a better phrase) photos that the Police took also. As could be possible autopsey photo's.

In both cases the families are having to go to court to stop the release. The release doesn't help the general public one bit.

I think a current relevant issue would be the luge accident of Nodar Kumaritashvili at the 2010 Winter Olympics. It is sad and tragic, but we saw that and we saw how the luge officials reacted. We/they learned from watching that tragic accident.

I agree that the Olympic footage of the luge event death should not have been shown... but they kept showing it over and over. To me, that's not news...

what did we learn????? (since you said that)? as viewers we really didn't learn anything that related to us as 99.9% of us don't "luge".

Maybe they learned that their track didn't have the right safety design. Heck I can tell that and I'm not a Luge track designer. But that has nothing to do with us....

they kept showing the video over and over as "sensationalized news". doesn't make it right.

We have reality shows that show security footage of people accidentally walking in front of trains, not paying attention. You turn on the History Channel and we can watch footage of those two Russian bank robbers who were better armed than the police put a gun to their head and pull the trigger. I don't know how much learning we get from watching these.
.

yeah.. but you watch those shows "by choice". not seeing those deaths by it being run over and over again on the evening news.

if you choose to watch those shows, by all means... set your TIVO.

 

[DennisS]

I'd like to find out about the disparity in reporting. When it first was reported, they said the whale grabbed her body and shook her, like you see them doing with seals. The aquarium reported that he pulled her around by the pony tail until she drowned. It would be interesting to find out which version is true.

Did this take place during a show, why aren't there a hundred videos out there from the audience?

 

[ScubaSteve]

I'd like to find out about the disparity in reporting. When it first was reported, they said the whale grabbed her body and shook her, like you see them doing with seals. The aquarium reported that he pulled her around by the pony tail until she drowned. It would be interesting to find out which version is true.

Did this take place during a show, why aren't there a hundred videos out there from the audience?

I agree that the truth would be nice but releasing the video is not required for that. The only thing that watching the video would do is allow you to arrive at your version of the truth. People were there and could answer questions (if you knew them that is). Interviews with the witnesses would be better than plastering the videos over every network around the world which is very likely what would happen if it were released. I personally would rather respect the wishes of the family and allow it to be locked away.

And I could be wrong, it happened "in the back" or an out of view area and just before a show (please someone correct me if I recall incorrectly).

 

[Cave Diver]

Right out of the gate......her husband does not want it released so I side with him. Seal it up.

Is this a view based on the fact that that it's video from a Seaworld cam?

Since it's their video, do you feel they have any say in how it's used?

Would your view differ in a situation like below where the video was the property of a bystander?

There were people who were at the "viewing glass" when the incident happened also and saw it (or part of it) of what happened underwater.

I just wasn't sure if one of them had a video cam, cell cam, point and shoot cam, etc taping it.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Is this a view based on the fact that that it's video from a Seaworld cam?

Since it's their video, do you feel they have any say in how it's used?

Would your view differ in a situation like below where the video was the property of a bystander?

No I based that opinion of mine to lock it up 100% from a moral standpoint. I can only imagine if it was my wife and I saw it every time logged onto a website. I personally do not care who owns the footage or who shot it. I think the only right thing to do is to respect the wishes of the family.

 

[mike_s]

Is this a view based on the fact that that it's video from a Seaworld cam?

Since it's their video, do you feel they have any say in how it's used?

Seaworld might own the video... but they don't want it released anymore than the family does.

Seaworld is a "family place". Do you really think they want pics of their "star attraction" killing people spread across the web and the evening new?

Would your view differ in a situation like below where the video was the property of a bystander?

I don't think either party (Seaworld or victims family) has a right to stop the bystander video (if it exists). But they can always take it to court.

but to me that's a huge squashing of "Free speech" to suppress a third parties video.

However, that just happened with a plane crash and the video in a Florida state park. a 3rd party on the beach filmed the video. They told the police they had a copy of the video crash and the police told them they were confiscating the video and they wouldn't get it back. I believe that's wrong.

The police do not have "rights of seizure" as protected by the constitution.

however in this case the person who taped it was willing to give it to them as part of their investigation. Which I would have done also. But I would not have liked for it to have been "seized".

but in the case of the 3rd party video if it exists with the whale, hopefully they wouldn't release it either by selling it to some news show. but people will do things for money these days....

 

[Cave Diver]

however in this case the person who taped it was willing to give it to them as part of their investigation. Which I would have done also. But I would not have liked for it to have been "seized".

I might have given them a copy of it, but I don't think I would have given up the original.

Just to be clear, I'm not sure it serves any purpose to release the whale video against the families wishes, I'm just playing devils advocate.

 

[mike_s]

I might have given them a copy of it, but I don't think I would have given up the original.

.

now days who uses "magenetic media"?

Most cell phone cameras which have video recorders record to memory cards.

most video cameras do the same. My video camera has a 30gb hard drive in it.


So hard to gen out a copy. But I understand what you mean though.


I wouldn't be opposed to giving a "plane crash" video to the media. But seeing a whale toss about a dead trainer like a dead seal isn't something that I want my kid seeing on TV. So if it was me, my video, I wouldn't have released it to the media. some things just aren't worth money.

 

[OldNSalty]

From the ‘I try not to be an ass as I pass through this world’ point of view I would honor the wishes of the family and give them my video footage.

From a ‘what I think is good for the legal system’ I am torn. On the one hand, if you have private video and want to release it against the family’s wishes then be an ass because it is news –sensationalized out of proportion but news. On the other hand, if an individual does not have a right to their own autonomy, their work and their image then who does?

Regardless, I have not, nor do I wish to see the video as I do not plan on being that close to a whale and can gleem nothing from it.

 

[Cave Diver]

On the other hand, if an individual does not have a right to their own autonomy, their work and their image then who does?

Isn't there a law or something that states people have no right to privacy when they are in a place with no reasonable expectation to it? i.e. You could end up on the jumbotron at a baseball game, because you're participating in a public event/place, etc. They don't require you to sign a waiver to display your image in such circumstances.