Spectators at Incident Today

[bsee65]

Do you really consider some bystander with a cell phone and a desire to be the next hit on YouTube to be a journalist?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

Any person with a recording device can be a journalist. With the increasing quality of personal video devices, there are plenty of home-made videos that end up on news programs.

As far as rights go, I don't believe it is a violation of a person's rights to take their picture, at least as a matter of law. On the other hand, it is a violation to publish that picture without their permission. When it's a news story, even that goes out the window. Ideally, anyone making videos would have some compassion in the way they use the footage, especially if the story has an unhappy ending.

All of you who are anti-video are assuming you know what's in the head of the videographer and what use that person will make of the product. You're also assuming that any such person would know that the outcome of the rescue attempt would be a failure. Do you believe that non-divers know the how unlikely it is that such a rescue would succeed? I don't. You know that the victim is probably beyond help and see someone recording death. Might the person with a camera think they are actually capturing a heroic rescue?

For those who would block a camera, would you do the same if there were a professional crew wearing the insignia of the local TV station? Do you think you'd get away with it?

 

[bamamedic]

Why wouldn't you get away with standing in front of the camera of a TV news crew? Do they have more of a right to be there than you do?

 

[DennisS]

Cell phones and curiosity seekers with videocameras are no more a journalist than kids with fast cars are race car drivers.

I don't even pretend to know what is in the head of someone videotaping an injured person. I can't figure out the need to capture the moment, do they want to look at it later, once isn't enough, share it with their friends, try to sell it, give a copy to the victim or their loved ones? Just because you have the capability to do something doesn't mean you should.

 

[bsee65]

Shenanigans! Not at all... we are pro-privacy and pro personal freedom. A person who is dying has a right to privacy and respect even though they can't enforce that right. Taking their picture without consent violates their rights. The paparazzi mindset is anathema to our personal freedoms and our health. The voyeurs who caused Princess Diana's wreck were acting under the auspices of "free press". They should be held accountable for their actions in causing the accident. We need to restore our freedom to operate without big brother (big media) watching our every move. Shenanigans #2. You should take some time and actually read this document. There is no constitutional protection for violating the rights of others. This is why cameras are often prohibited from the court room.

....

Part of being a rescuer is controlling the scene and this includes crowd control. Don't try to do it all yourself: delegate! Ask bystanders to create a privacy wall to keep intrusive voyeurs from being able to rape the victim's rights. This kind of intrusion is disgusting and counter productive to assisting the victim in their time of greatest need.

There's a big difference between being there to take pictures and chasing after someone at high speed. Similarly, there's a difference between standing in the crowd with a camera and impacting the rescue attempt to get a better angle or get closer.

The rescue should be about the victim and not the rescuer. Someone standing in the crowd to take pictures may not be the victim's first choice, but it certainly isn't "counter productive to assisting the victim". At least, it isn't unless a rescue participant decides that stopping a camera is more important than the rescue attempt. Do you think the victim would rather have you focus on lifesaving or chasing a camera away? If anyone seems to be looking for protection from the camera in these comments, it's the rescuer more than the victim.

 

[DennisS]

There's a big difference between being there to take pictures and chasing after someone at high speed. Similarly, there's a difference between standing in the crowd with a camera and impacting the rescue attempt to get a better angle or get closer.

The rescue should be about the victim and not the rescuer. Someone standing in the crowd to take pictures may not be the victim's first choice, but it certainly isn't "counter productive to assisting the victim". At least, it isn't unless a rescue participant decides that stopping a camera is more important than the rescue attempt. Do you think the victim would rather have you focus on lifesaving or chasing a camera away? If anyone seems to be looking for protection from the camera in these comments, it's the rescuer more than the victim.

When I took an EMT class we all took turns being the patient. One of the exercises was having us lay on the floor on our back, with the rest of the class standing above us, looking down. It is a very uncomfortable feeling, even when you know everyone. A bunch of strangers standing over someone while taking pictures could be very stressful for the victim. They deserve privacy, sometimes it is necessary to remove clothing. No one wants to be photographed when they are most vulnerable. The rescuer wants to do everything to make the patient as comfortable as possible and get them to relax.

 

[ScubaSteve]

Some people just seem to be missing that signal that tells them when something that they are doing (or are about to do) is inappropriate.

 

[Cave Diver]

Just because you have the capability to do something doesn't mean you should.

Aint that the truth!

 

[MXGratefulDiver]

Ideally, anyone making videos would have some compassion in the way they use the footage, especially if the story has an unhappy ending.

You don't spend much time on the Internet, I take it ... there's way too many people out there who would happily sell your death and dignity for a little bit of fame or money ... without a second thought what it would do to your family.

A compassionate person wouldn't consider making the video in the first place.

Ask yourself how many YouTube videos have been taken down because the person who posted them lacked either the compassion or common sense to understand why they shouldn't have been posted ... or they simply didn't care.

All of you who are anti-video are assuming you know what's in the head of the videographer and what use that person will make of the product. You're also assuming that any such person would know that the outcome of the rescue attempt would be a failure. Do you believe that non-divers know the how unlikely it is that such a rescue would succeed? I don't. You know that the victim is probably beyond help and see someone recording death. Might the person with a camera think they are actually capturing a heroic rescue?

Would you feel the same way if the victim in that video was your kid or your mother?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

 

[belairbrian]

A few responses after reading through this.
I am a rescue diver, having completed the class about 30 minutes before this incident.
I have no illusions that I am now Rescue Man, I only hope I have more knowledge to help where I can.

Having just completed the course the material is still fresh in my mind.

On using the kayak, IMO it lessend the time to get him to the dock. EMTs with emergency equipment were there.

On rescue breathes, judgemnet call. The distance was about 20 to 30 yds. Again IMO better to move quickly.

I have never had to deal with any serious issue while diving. I have done what I could at motor vehicle accididents. The worst was an elderly woman that hit a telephone pole right in front of us. I did what I could, kept pressure on a head wound and took direction from my wife (she is a nurse and better qualified). After EMTs arrived I briefed them and got out of the way.

As for filming, at over 70 yds the the phone video would be of poor quality and doubtfully useful for any lessons learned value. One last note you would need a helicopter to have filmed this from public property. And considering the staff was very busy, I highly doubt the camera man asked or recevied permisison.

 

[bsee65]

You don't spend much time on the Internet, I take it ... there's way too many people out there who would happily sell your death and dignity for a little bit of fame or money ... without a second thought what it would do to your family.

A compassionate person wouldn't consider making the video in the first place.

Ask yourself how many YouTube videos have been taken down because the person who posted them lacked either the compassion or common sense to understand why they shouldn't have been posted ... or they simply didn't care.



Would you feel the same way if the victim in that video was your kid or your mother?

... Bob (Grateful Diver)

You're changing the argument. The question of videotaping a rescue attempt can be challenged on a number of grounds.

First, is it legal? Second, does it impact the rescue? Third, is it morally appropriate?

With regard to it being legal, I believe that it generally is. Ther may be some locations where filming is prohibited. There may be some restrictions on what one can do with a video once made.

With regard to impacting the rescue, there are two possibilities there. One is that the photographer will actually get in the way while trying to film. Clearly, that can never be allowed to happen. The other is that potential rescuers would refuse to participate for fear of film being used against them. To me, that's an argument to fix the legal system more than a reason not to film. One might also argue that filming creates a situation where someone might create a secondary incident trying to stop the filming. Again, this can't be entirely laid at the feet of the photographer if filming is done from a distance that does not impact the rescue attempt.

The most difficult to resolve is the question of morality. Each person has their own moral compass, and that makes it more difficult. Things that are perfectly normal in one society might be out of the question in another. Personally, I don't find the taking of a picture or video to be morally inappropriate. I assure you that there are plenty of uses for that video that I would object to. There are probably a few that I would be okay with as well. If the victim survives and you didn't tape it, you can't reverse time and capture the event. If the victim passes, a responsible videographer could hit the delete button. You can argue that it will end up on Youtube, but that's not definitely the result. You ask what if the victim were a relative, but what if the photographer were a relative or close friend? I've seen a few videos of hairy situations shot by people close to a participant.

I would say that I am also a proponent of personal firearm ownership, or at least the right to own and carry. Many people are morally offended by the concept because of the potential for bad results, but I am okay with it. I'd like to see anyone who misuses their firearm punished severely, but they have a right to possess one. I think this is similar, conceptually, to how I feel about the video question.