JPINFV

That is not true. A man was arrested and they attempted to make it the law but a Federal court threw it out. Stating ""Gathering information about government officials in a form that can readily be disseminated to others serves a cardinal First Amendment interest in protecting and promoting "the free discussion of governmental affairs."

http://www.universal...ing-police-offi

You're making the same point that he is making, which is the same point I made by posting the actual appeals court decision.

I think that would be the yeast of her problems.

Only in Candida.

If he was a woman they'd have to be concerend about the possibility of having a bun in the oven,

It's unfortunate that it was...

...unleavened bread.

Let's hope he didn't get...

too mixed up.

Edit:

Never mind... if people can't discuss issues like grownups, then I'm going to stop replying to them.

The defense of civill rights of simpletons who'd like to record patients being treated in public doesn't engage my brain ... Really?... Will a disrobed patient video be more fun at your next Occupy meeting? If you mess with my patient in field, you'll be moved back. Fool.

...and really, "Will a disrobed patient video be more fun at your next Occupy meeting?" Will a video of you destroying someone else's property be more fun at your next Fascist Anonymous meeting? I can meet hyperbole with hyperbole.

Again JP you bring this back to filming Govt officials, and that's never been the question.

Please see my previous post addressing a person or entities responsibilities where freedom of speech and freedom of the press are concerned.

I'm curious to see you justify this person's actions in the face of those responsibilities. Though I've conceded that any form of violence isn't practical here, you're arguments only work if we blindly assume that the constitutional freedoms are absolute without the previously mentioned responsibilities, and that just simply isn't the case.

And is it possible that we can continue this discussion as stated in the OP from the point of view that you are not filming government officials?

Edit: After looking again I can see that that wasn't made clear but perhaps I've assumed it because I know that Mike doesn't work in a government capacity in EMS. But I do believe that that is how the discussion has progressed, no govt involved.

The first amendment only discusses "freedom of the press" without regard to it being against public officials. Lovell v City of Griffin doesn't deal with city officials directly, just "who is the press."

Furthermore, the reason I come back to Glik v Cunniffee is that the discussion of the case law that went into deciding that decision goes well beyond simply taping government officials. Furthermore, if you're looking for a case that specifically is 'man with camera vs private ambulance crew,' one most likely doesn't exist. In the same manner, there's unlikely to be a case that puts a responsibility to maintain a patient's privacy on a private citizen onlooker nor is there a case that allows a medical provider to physically accost an onlooker, nor is there going to be a case that requires a medical worker to be responsible for the actions of onlookers. There's a difference between a medical worker not releasing information based on privacy statutes, and forcing someone not bound by privacy statutes to abide by said statutes.

Houchins v KQED was a case that was cited in the Glik case that was about gathering information about prisoners. They, in part, held that "There is an undoubted right to gather news "from any source by means within the law," That line from the Houchin's decision was directly quoted in the Glik decision. While Houchins was about the press looking at prison conditions, and Glik was about filming police officers, the facts surrounding the case doesn't change the fact that "There is an undoubted right to gather news "from any source by means within the law," and that the concept of "freedom of the press" doesn't just apply to those who own a proverbial "press" (i.e. news companies).

So, what law is there that limits a private citizen from filming an emergency scene out in public?

Furthermore, a lot of the cases comes back to citizens collecting and disseminating how our government is acting. If I'm a citizen of City A, and City A has a contract with Private Service 1 to provide emergency medical services to the city, then I think that there's a very strong argument that I have a first amendment right to gather and disperse information on the qualtiy of Private Service 1 provided that the information is gathered in a legal manner. How else can I, as a citizen, petition the local government to either renew or reject the contract with Private Service 1 when their contract is up?

That may be, but in the meantime what is your opinion of where to draw the line?

Without getting into the Zimmerman situation, since there's too much that isn't known yet and too many other variables than a photographer case, I think forced in self-defense needs to be proportional to what is being faced. I think that if an EMT or paramedic is grabbing or throwing punches at someone who is outside of the exclusion zone then that person is free to respond in kind until the aggressor stops agressing. However I don't think that rises to the need to use deadly force, such as a concealed weapon.

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.

Amazing what a fence would do.

Just an anecdote. Adds nothing to this discussion except fodder to JP's last post.

You can also consider the fence to be the perimeter line on a scene.

Since it's rather germane to the discussion of strikeing photographers, Detriot is getting a new fire commishioner after he cursed at and slapped a microphone out of a reporter's hands who was trying to ask him questions about the lack of maintnance in Detroit's fire stations.

http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/video?autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=7355386

The confrontation is at 55 seconds.

Pox, you bring up an interesting point. It has been argued that PD/FF and possibly EMS are governement employees and therefore photography is allowed. How about in the ER of a state or county hospital? In my residency I was at a state hospital on state land and was a state employee. Does that give someone the right to come in and photograph me? The only difference between me and the crew in the field is the fact that I have a roof over my head.

"Public property" and "state property" isn't the same thing. Try walking through the governor's house or the back rooms of the local court house and see how far you can get. The difference between having that roof and not having that roof is a pretty big difference.

It's like the difference between an unfenced yard and a fenced yard. In general, it's not trespassing for people to be in an unfencsed, unsigned yard until told to leave. A fenced or signed yard, on the other hand, makes their mere presence trespassing.

The big difference is that everyone has a right to be on public lands like a city street.

I realize those members of the legendary Citizen Information League feel they have the right to record wherever/whenever in public. In Maryland, Illinois and Massachusettes it's illegal to record police operations, even in a public place.

Legality of videotaping a patient being treated in public? I'll leave for a moment the shoddy ethical choice and general asshattedness of such an act and go back to legal constraints. Ever heard of disorderly conduct? Public conduct that tends to anger, annoy or intimidate?

I really have no venom about this topic, I'm just perplexed that ass hats have apologists.

The 1st Circuit Court of Appeals case that I posted earlier was a case out of Boston, MA. The courts don't take kindly to police constantly arresting people for actions that they've ruled to be constitutionally protected. That's a good way for a police officer to find himself out of a job and house and home. Civil rights suits aren't cheap.

Furthermore, that's not what disorderly conduct is. Since you're from Minnesota, I'll look at the Minnesota penal code.

2011 Minnesota Statutes

609.72 DISORDERLY CONDUCT.

Subdivision 1.Crime.

Whoever does any of the following in a public or private place, including on a school bus, knowing, or having reasonable grounds to know that it will, or will tend to, alarm, anger or disturb others or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, is guilty of disorderly conduct, which is a misdemeanor:

(1) engages in brawling or fighting; or

(2) disturbs an assembly or meeting, not unlawful in its character; or

(3) engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/statutes/?id=609.72

Filming a scene is neither engaging in brawling/fighting, disturbing an assembly or meeting, or offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct in the manner that you would like it to. Furthermore, "others" is going to mean multiple people.

Second, while MN does have an Interference with Privacy statute, but none of it applies to the situations we're discussing.

• The press has much more granted freedoms. Which is very good. They buy it with the duty to care for protection of persons they report about in the proper way. So they're responsible for blurring pictures or such. A provider on scene, assuming someone is going to publish the material against the public right has it easy with some random bystander, but may not interfer with the press. On the other side, it's not always very clear how to identify press (at leat the journalist organization issues ID cards to listed members), could be a bit tricky in extreme situations. Press tends to behave, since they usually want a good relationship enabling their work - then they willingly accept friendly hints. But they even are allowed to endanger themselves! BTW, there was a well-known incident where press took an active part in a hostage situation, which lead to a very restrict self-control of the press (reference: ).
  

Part of the problem in the US that the "press" in the confines of "freedom of press" is... well... everyone. I have just as much right to publish, print, and report on than a journalist from the Los Angeles Times do because that right doens't flow from being employed in that capacity, but by being a citizen.

US Supreme Court case Lovell v City of Griffin is the one that defines everyone as a member of the press.

I am, and have, and think back on those memories fondly. Maybe you know from my regular postings, maybe not, that it's not my way to look for trouble, but some things simply need to not happen. And if they begin, they need to be stopped right now. Not argued at some later date after more victims have been created.

...

Had we called the police I'm confident that there are no laws against his actions and he would have spent his happy pathetic little life terrorizing other women in the same way. I'm very confident that for at least the next several weeks he had time to consider his actions and decide to be a better person. I'm happy that I could help.

...but how many bar fights see people go to jail and catch convinctions? Is it worth your ability to support your family? Especially if the person you're protecting isn't your family?

I can't really see the idea of allowing people to be victimized and then sorting it out later, as opposed to stopping the victimization in the least aggressive way available and then sorting the rest out later. Above I was confident that polite conversation was not going to solve the issue. I am confident that he didn't do the same thing again any time soon. The world is a better place by Dwayne's reckoning.

The problem is that if you read the responses, a lot of people are advocating the most aggressive response possible when other options exist besides force (either on your own part or by enlisting the police).

I don't doubt you for a second. You just seem to believe that everything needs to be disallowed by the government. I don't believe that we are mature enough as a nation or a world to accept that we can stand idly by, watch our friends and neighbors be victimized by douchebags and trust that somehow the government will make it all better.

The problem is that we don't get to make up our own personal rules and punishments for actions. For example, think that if a sex offender is unstable enough to require all of the extra rules that comes with being a registered sex offender (discussion of the validty of those rules and that list is for another thread), then they're too dangerous to be out in public. However I don't get to ransack their house or break their car windows to make them leave the neighborhood.

However, if I was to take the stance quoted, and engage in the actions that are being advocated on the first page of this thread, then I should be perfectly justified in taking what ever action necessary to run a dangerous convict out of my neighborhood. After all, the state isn't going to step in and protect me, so I have to take matters into my own hands.

You and I must define a mob mentality and mob justice differently. I associated myself with no mob in my previous statement but explained my personal choice of theoretical actions. There was no mob in the bar. In each case I acted as an individual.

Maybe mob mentality is the wrong chocie of words, but it was the closest term I could think of for, "Damn the laws, I'm going to enforce what I want... because" mentality.

I'm not sure how to make the argument Brother that the government can't solve every ill. And that every man that chooses to stand up for himself or his family or his neighbors isn't simply a rabid dog because he's acting without proper government sanction.

Can the government regulate every distasteful action? No, and for a variety of reasons. Does that grant others license to "stand up" in a manner that violates the law, especially when other courses of action exist that are in compliance with the law? Also no.

On one hand you seem to be saying, "I have the right to film the police so as to protect myself from the government!" Yet on the other, "You can't do that because the government hasn't said that it's OK!" That confuses me.

I'm arguing that you can't physically confront someone and take their camera because the government has said that taking other people's property is wrong.

I'm arguing that we can't confront and make someone turn off the camera because, yes, the govenrment hasn't given us the power to force our will on other people. Emergency responders are granted additional power to properly control a scene, but that power only exists as far as necessary, and somoene standing outside of the barrier is no longer on scene, and thus out of the responders' legal sphere of influence. So, yes, when it comes to an action that would otherwise be violating the law, then the government needs to carve out an exception.

I'm truly grateful that we disagree on this. I think that your attitude is the future, and we need people that think of the future to bring it into being. But your attitude also has people behave as sheep unless backed by a police officer. It demands that you stand by at such moments and spectate pain in the name of 'progress.' I just don't have that in me...

It's not about being sheep without a police officer. It's about choosing an approprite, balanced, and legal response (this one especially when someone is requesting a police officer for assistance). Most the responses I saw on the first page was neither appropriate, balanced, or legal.

I don't know how, though I did try, to write statements like the above without having any of it that sounds petty, or intentionally insulting. I will ask that you believe that at no time was that my intention. I have huge respect for your intelligence and your contributions here. It was only my intention to try and give as clear a picture of my 'knuckle dragger' perspective as it relates to your comments as I understand them.

I didn't take anything you said as being negative against me. If I can't justify the positions I carry on something like this then I probably shouldn't be expousing them.

You know, you kind of got after Pox for not answering a simple question, yet I feel like I'm making the same point over and over. In this particular instance you use this example despite my stating that neither I, nor my patient are connected to the government in any way, so I'm not clear how the above statement applies.

Sorry if I'm not being clear. I'm not trying to evade this point. Yes, there is no inheriant right such as there is with government officials (of course if fire or PD is on scene...). However I don't feel that it rises to the level of violance, especially given that there are other options available, such as tarps, sheets, or moving the patient. There's a very big leap between, "I'm going to make it so that you can't see," and "I'm going to make it so that you can't film by either making just you leave (not the 20 other people watching), or breaking your camera." If they want to film a big white sheet that 2 other people are holding, then fine.

I get that from you Brother, and respect it. So it seems to be your point that nothing that hasn't already have a specific law made against it is worth defending? If this was your wife or daughter you would simply allow the filming to happen, allow their nude images to be shown on Youtube, and then apologize later saying, "I'm sorry for all of this babe. But I couldn't protect you because no one has made a law about that yet..." Serious question, not sniping.

Or, let's say your daughter falls and accidentally exposes herself in her dress. You notice a man aim his cell phone between her legs, taking pictures while laughing with his buddies. Same question, same non disrespectful tone.

It limits what actions I can take, though. There's no law saying I can't stand right in front of the camera that's filming on scene. If I have enough time to leave to confront someone filming, then there's enough people on scene anyways.

In regards to my daughter falling, again, I don't have a right to haul off and sucker punch them or break the camera. Will I get mad and probably create a scene hoping to shame them into deleting the pictures? Sure, but that's a far cry from breaking their camera.

I feel the same about those watching and those filming. I'm disgusted by both when a vulnerable nude person is involved. Again, I'm not sure if you're referring to any of my statement, it's seems not, but just in case, I thought that I made it pretty clear that I didn't care if he was interfering or not, that was simply the excuse that I was going to use to make him stop.

Now lets take this to the next step. A crowd gathers watching you and one or two people in the crowd are filming and you only tell the 2 people filming to leave and they don't compy. What's the next step? The problem is that they've now called your bluff unless you're willing to expand the perimeter for everyone. Getting the police involved? If the police are doing what they should (upholding the law), then they aren't going to do anything except maybe be a moving privacy shield (usefull, but they're still there).

The main difference between tolerating the watchers if necessary and not those filming is that the watchers can do very little damage by watching while those filming can do massive mental and emotional damage to the victim and their family. We are morally and ethically charged with protecting and advocating for our patients except in instances where it might obstruct some pervs voyeuristic evening?

Moral and ethical obligations don't surpress the restraints placed on us by law unless we're willing to face the consequences. Again, I'm not arguing that no action can be taken, only that a physical alterication isn't one of them. We can ask, but we can't forced. We can, however, block the view, but that's largely the only option we have.

Also, from the quoted articles of the first amendment that I posted, I don't see where he's legally protected to violate this patient in this way. Maybe you could explain that?

The issue is that there is no right to privacy while out in public. There is no legal obligation involved with John Q. Public such as there is with medical providers. I do agree that my right ends where another person right's begins, but no such right or expectation of privacy exists for the most part when out in public.

You very well might. If a jury of your peers finds that my behavior was outside of the boundaries of what's normally considered morally acceptable in our society, you very well might. I believe that the difference between you and I is that I believe that the government can't make a law for everything that might harm another person. I believe that sometimes we have to stand up and fill the gaps.

I'd rather not take the chance of facing a jury when I can take other actions that are perfectly legal and obtain the same end goal.

It seems to me from your argument that you'd be willing (Again, assuming circumstances that we can't realistically mitigate in another way) to allow this woman while in your care to have her pictures, her privacy, her reputation possibly irreparably damaged (Much worse than a simple assault in my opinion) so as not to chance violating the rights of those that would violate her when helpless. That just doesn't make any sense to me.

Granted, this is more for rainin this picture, but if you drop the tarp then privacy is maintained. If you have enough time to be looking at the crowd and confronting people, then you have enough time to hold a tarp. There's also the issue of covering the patient with a sheet when done with any exam or procedures that requires the patient to be unclothed.

Can someone post something after this (even if it's just a word or two) so I can post the rest of the resposne without breaking the formatting?

JP is sometimes condescending in my opinion, but it's pretty uncommon, and it seems that this topic resonates with him. I for one, having experience with him here for several years would hope that many, not all, but many of the doctors being produces would be such open minded thinkers.

It resonates with me because I think that we should have the right to film our government officials. In general, however, the issue arises when someone wants to film the police. Furthermore, when I see videos like the one posted before or

A comment about that link, the photographer was already moving across the road to where the EMT was pointing to when she stopped him. When she smacked the camera she ended up breaking the image stabilizer, hence the unsteady shot.

I am confused though JP when you reference the constitution (I think you did) and legality, why you're only concerned with violence and have none for the comments about 'responsibility', 'health', 'privacy' and 'morals?'

It's about appropriateness of the response. I have a right to film government officials. I have a right to not be assulted, to not be battered, and to be secure in my property. The patient has a right to privacy from those dispatched and those engaged in the patient's care, but doesn't have a right to privacy from the general public. As such, I have to draw the line at physically forcing (through theft, assault, battery, or a combination of the three) someone to stop filming as it is neither a reasonable, proportionate, or legal use of force. There's a difference between those, and say, recruiting people to hold up sheets or moving the patient to someplace private. This is especially true if no complaint is going to be made about people watching. There's little difference in my mind between filming and simply watching when privacy comes into play, but no one is advocating that we strike at people watching from the barrier or push those people back. Instead the focus is on the camera and the camera's magical ability to interfer at a distance in a manner that eyes lack. As such, the argument agaisnt taping, for the most part, also lacks any sort of consistency.

But again, we live in a world where we're supposed to show our progressiveness, intelligence and open mindedness by standing quietly and being victimized, but I didn't grow up in that world.

This isn't about progressiveness and open mindedness. Just because you think ____ is distasteful, disrespectful, or anything else doesn't mean you can force your views on someone else, just like I lack the ability to force any views I have on you. How would you like it if I came up to you and assaulted you because I thought you doing _____ was distasteful, disrespectful, or something else of a similar nature, albeit legal? I suddently get a pass at engaging in an illegal action because I disagreed with your actions?

If someone calls Babs a whore, is he legally/constitutionally protected for his free speech? I'd imagine so as long as he does it without becoming aggressive. Is that going to keep me from knocking the shit out of him and making sure that he never even considers doing such a thing again? Not at all.

Are you willing to go to jail for it?

Even in this liberal world where we're supposed to show ourselves to be better than the animals by being docile and submissive regardless of the circumstances, some shit just needs to be disallowed.

I agree that somethings should be disallowed. My two issues is first off the wording of such regulation (as I alluded to in my reply after you posted this), and second is that until it is disallowed, it's not disallowed. Mob justice is wrong, regardless of how rightous the goals are.

I don't think the IL bill has any teeth to it. It limits the cameras within 500 feet, but so what? My iPhone 4S can take some pretty awesome pictures at greater distances. It's a step in the right direction though, too bad the intent isn't to protect the patient. People who become patients in a public area should be able to expect the same level of privacy they have in their own homes. They are no longer just John Q Public, they have become a patient and that status is deserving of extra protection even if it means hurting someone's feelings.

I agree in principal that people shouldn't just being standing at the barricade filming care being given, but I think the wording is going to be difficult. Is filming a house fire now going to be illegal? Oh, I can film the house fire until the fire fighters pull someone out, then I have to shut it off even if I'm not focusing on it? What about security cameras? It would be a shame if the security camera footage of the Kelly Thomas beating was thrown out because it also showed the intial on scene care (as well as the officers initially complaing about their little boo-boos while the man they just murdered was left chocking on his own blood). After all, it would be a fruit of a poisonous tree now.

Furthermore, we have a right to film government officials in the course of their actions (Glik v Cunniffe et. al PDF warning). While it's a 1st Circuit case, thus only applying to the 1st Circuit, they do a good job of citing other case law as well as other decisions from other circuit. While there is no right to film a private ambulance crew (albeit I don't think it would be a stretch that an ambulance service responding to a call originating from a public safety access point, especially if that service is contracted by the local government for those services are there for representing the local government), an argument can definitely be made that filming a government fire department is as much a 1st amendment right as is filming police officers while in public.

More importantly, I think there's a very dangerous slippery slope issue involved. It'll be the next eavesdropping law where it will be abused in manners that aren't intended.

Finally, there's already enough videos online of fire fighters and EMTs taking the "law" (since there often is no law barring such behavior) into their own hands against. It's no more an EMT's job to take physical action against someone filming as it is to, say, chase down someone speeding through an accident scene. Why are we so afraid to confront patients with psychatric illness yet willing to get into a physcal altercation over a piece of electronics? Cognitive dissonance.

You're denying the general exception to interfering with public safety/ems operations in most state statutes...

You haven't established that the simple action of filming is any more interfering with the operation than standing there watching it sans camera.

Edit to add: If I'm standing at a close enough distance that I'm interfering with the operation simply because of my presence, then whether I have a camera or not is irrelevant. No one is arguing that a reasonable exclusion zone can't be made. What's being argued is that there isn't one line for people without cameras and another line for people with cameras.

The concept is called a reasonable expectation of privacy, actually. It can get rather complex. Can people be arrested for filming? Sure as hell. If law enforcement wants to shut off the newsie broadcasting around the block while they're negotiating...think they can?

People get arrested all the time and released. Police departments also catch civil rights suits when the intentionally arrest people because they don't like the person's lawful actions. The fact that an accident occurs on the freeway doesn't mean that there is suddently an expectation of privacy on the freeway.

You're such a linear thinker. Step back and think about LEO's FF's and EMS trying to have a best outcome. Your ACLU sensibilities may be abused but what would you like other than the best outcome possible for your patient?

How does someone with a camera affect the outcome anymore than the person standing next to them sans camera?

Doc, I realize the First Amendment is not absolute, I was a reporter. I mention interfering with public safety operations as an exception because to me it was posited that it was not.

You haven't explained how the person with a camera is interfering with a public safety operation any more than the person next to them without the camera. If you're at an accident scene do you also call the FAA to get the news helicopters to move? Do you have a police officer go into the buildings adjacent to an emergency scene to make sure that no one looks out a window, or worse, look out the window with a camera? You've yet to show how the presence of a camera interfers with your scene.

I like to think of it as patient advocacy. Though it's all in theory, assuming he was such a prick, assuming that there was no reasonable way to deal with it, assuming that the police and/or fire wouldn't assist.

I guess I'm still a bit of a knuckle dragger in the fact that I don't believe that someone's right to be an asshole supersedes another's right to have their health and dignity protected.

Maybe I'm an ACLU loving pinko-commie libertarian, but I don't see how people have a sense of privacy (outside special areas like bathrooms, least we get another obtuse comment), and I don't see how someone feels that they have the right to engage in physical and ultimately criminal activity, nor expect represtatives of the state to use their power, to force another individual to stop engaging in a lawful action.

I'm not arguing that it's not an asshole move to film a medical scene in public. However being an asshole isn't illegal. Want to make it illegal, there's a method for that. Petitiion the state legislature to make it illegal. Until then, I can't condone criminal or illegitimate use of force agaisnt a lawful action.

You're kidding, right? Filiming in a public place is generally allowed but for the obvious things like mens and womens locker rooms at the beach, not. But, in almost every state filming that interferes with police/fire ems operations is prohibited, and actionable. Really? You need a road map?

If you're going to back up the cameras you better be backing up everyone without a camera as well. You still haven't explained how someone with a camera is somehow interfering with your scene and the person standing next to them without the camera is not interfering with them. ...and yes, there's an expectation of privacy in locker rooms and bathrooms. I just assumed that people wouldn't be obtuse about it.

By the way, let's get a lawyer's opinion on whether we can assault or arrest bystanders just for filimg.

Uh, filming a childbirfth at a protest with the Great Unwashed may be a very beautiful thing to your generation. To mine it's a serious tort.

At least my generation doesn't feel the need to commit battery against individuals engaged in activities that we don't agree with.

The same first amendment allows the FF to turn the hose on the asshole. free speech and all that!

The first amendment doesn't allow for battery.

Failing that I would forcefully take his phone and let the powers that be work out the details after the call was complete.

If only there was a word for that. Oh, yea, robbery.

Letting my bitch out of the box= Sir may I see your phone? Wow thats a really nice phone...*insert breaking phone in half here* This is my boss's phone number...My name is blah blah blah...make sure you spell it right. And theres the officer for you to give your complaint too. Here's your phone sir..Have a nice day! Now get on the other side of the street!

So robbery and distruction of property. I hope you have enough money to replace the cell phone.

In my other life I was a reporter. 5 years, broadcast. And a stringer for the Associated Press. As far as I know, a citizen with a camera or cell phone has NO First Amendment right to:

1. Violate HiPPA.

2. Viloate a person's privacy (in the civil sense).

3. Interfere with prompt and necessary medical care.

4. Interfere with a crime scene.

5. Interfere with an accident reconstruction scene.

1. HIPAA doesn't apply to the general public,

2. There is no expectation of privacy when out in public.

3. How is the camera interfering with your prompt and necessary medical care than someone without a camera?

4. How does a camera interfer with a crime scene, assuming it is a crime scene?

5. How does a camera interfer with accident reconstruction?

It's a wiki, so I don't have other references now...

(Trying to find stuff in between working. It seems that most laws define freedom of the press and freedom of speech in the same way.)

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]

No more relevant than all of those strongly worded letters that the UN sends to Iran. I have to follow the laws of what ever area I'm in and the UN neither makes nor enforces those laws.

True, but the other end of that two- pronged steer is: if someone is not in healthcare, no HIPPA violation. Just an ass hat. (But subject to civil penalties.) If someone is in health care there IS an expectation to tell someone to knock it off.

What civil penalties? Cite applicable laws or cases where someone faced actual penalties for the mere act of filming out in public. Not other violations that might have also occured, but just for the act of filming.

Similarly, HIPAA doesn't require me to go take somene else's film. Is there an ethical imparitive to attempt to prevent it? Sure, but moving the patient to a more private area or having someone hold up something like a sheet fullfills that imperative. Assult, battery, and robbery, however, is not justified.

With the amount of mental illness we encounter, I would not call it a zebra. No one else has ever seen a pseudoseizre?

1 patient, 4 times during the call, but that patient also had a signfiicant psych history including conversion syndrome and was being picked up from an outpatient county psych office.

No not everyone is being sedated and someone who has simple depression is not being sedated nor are children. And I will disagree about the safety because I am one of them and I assure you I have a very good ability of assessing phyc pts out in the field or in a controlled setting. We do have a zero tolerance the same as the hospital but we don’t do the "always do" not in our station anyways

So it's not every patient or any patient with a history of mental illness. As long as that's the case, then discretion is available and discretion should be used.

Also, I'm a bit confused. How can you have zero tolerance, yet not be required to "always snow paitnets"? Are you simply ignoring that directive (and bad directives should be ignored)?

If it's not zero tolerance, then why is it being presented as any history of mental illness gets snowed?

If paramedics can adequately assess psych disorders why have a zero tolerance policy? There's cognitative dissonance in saying "Well, we can adequately assess patients, but we're required to do X regardless of our assessment." If you can adequately assess, then you should also fight to not be required, as a group, to do X.

And when I am referring to this topic they are not being admitted they are being committed and normally on their own accord. The last guy I had to sedate was paranoid schizophrenic; he came to hospital on his own accord because the TV was telling him to kill himself and other violent acts.

You can't be comitted on your own accord because treatment while committed is, for all but certain extreme treatments, not voluntary and not on their own accord.

Additionally, the threat assessment for a patient who presents because he is listening to voices and a patient who hears voices and knows that they are bad and is seeking treatment on his own isn't the same simply because the latter recognizes that those voices are abnormal. The last thing I'd want is that second patient to not come in because he doesn't like getting needlessly snowed.

No you took that the wrong way. I feel that people who are like the above need intensive phyc care which does not include 2 weeks in a phyc ward and a bottle of pills. They need to be in a controlled hospital setting for much more than that.

Apparently the patient above has something working because he recognizes that the voices aren't normal, isn't listening to said voices, and knows he needs a med adjustment. Group therapy isn't going to make the voices go away. What are you expecting? Him being an inpatient until the voices go away?

]By the way the day after this guy came home he did committe suicide and it was very violent.

Was anyone else injured in his suicide? Taking a human life, including ones own, often involves violence, and I'll put patients suffering from severe mental illness seeking death in the same category as someone suffering from ALS or other chronic, cureless disease with an immense amount of suffering seeking death. Hearing your TV talking to you isn't exactly the same on the suicide scale as someone suffering from depression because their BFF left them.

Even though the policy says certain things if the pt is going for an ultrasound and there is no mention of their, let’s say prior suicide attempts they are NOT sedated.

So any patient with a prior history of sucidie attempts gets sedated if the crew knows about it? "Sorry ma'am, it looks like you tried to commit suicide 20 years ago when you were 15. We're going to have to sedate you for this trip... for all of our safety."

So as I see it, it is not everyone that has a hx of mental illness, we would be sedating everyone. It is there for those that actually have been diagnosed with a medical condition (they are listed in the policy) also for those that have been deemed violent (the case I keep mentioning is a drug addict that in the past year has stabbed 3 people and the last person was stabbed 8 times) Most of the people that are sedated are going to a phyc ward and not because they want to, they have been committed.

What are those conditions? Also what do you mean by "those that actually have been diagnosed with a medical condition"? As compared to all those people running around crying about their fake mental illness?

...and wait a minute. We go from "schizophrenic who knows the voices in the TV are in his head and knows that he needs help, thus seeks it" to "violent drug addict." That's a bit of a jump. Similarly, we go from "any mental illness" to "those being forced to go." However I've seen enough holds for dubious reasons (The, "Whaa, my BF broke up with me and I'm drunk on wine and want to hurt myself, but I don't have a plan and I'm just depressed and was venting to a friend over the phone" holds) that even the "only those on a hold" is a bit too far.

I really don’t disagree with that statement but I have to say exactly what is the appropriate uses. Now please remember this topic is on Flighing people out. We cannot drive because it would an 8-52 hr ferry ride. I don’t believe that people going by car should be sedated to the same level by any means, because you can physically restrain them to the stretcher or pull over and jump out, you don’t have that luxury in a plane.

I get that it's a plane or helicopter and I agree that the threshold should be lower than an ambulance. However when it's presented that everyone on a hold or everyone with a history of mental illness, regardless of any assessment, gets snowed, I'm going to call foul. There's a difference between a lower threshold, and not having any threshold.

I get a bit snippy when it comes to mental illnesses because I've seen how being needlessly agressive can negatively impact a patient, I've seen stupidty, both from system protocols, the people writing holds, and other EMTs, and I've seen how a patient can be completely different even a few hours and a couple of meds later. Not necessarilly enough to let them off of a hold 2 days early, but definitely in the right mind set to not require them to be strapped down in 4 point restraints. Similarly, my undergrad research project was in schizophrenic and bipolar patients looking at how well they filter stimuli. It's a big difference when mental illness is looked at as a neuro problem and not a mind problem.

I get their side of things but our safety in any situation has to be first and foremost.

If what is being said is true, and anyone with a mental health disorder, including simple depression, are being knocked out, then it's stupid, dangerous, and the "but our safety" people are idiots who can't assess patients. It's everything that's bad with "zero tolerance" or "always do ___" policies or rules.

There's a time and place for chemical restraints, but just as the indication for a non-rebreather mask isn't "ambulance," the indication for chemical restraints should not and cannot be "history of any mental illness."

on the other side of the coin you never know how someone who is being committed is going to act.

You never know how anyone is going to act, ergo everyone should be knocked out. Not everyone being comitted is being comitted because they are a danger to themselves or a danger to others. Furthermore, since this sounds like middle of nowhere frontier rural, just because someone is being admitted doesn't mean that they are being comitted.

If psychotropic medication is the sign of, to use your term, lazy physicians, then making every patient with a history of any mental illness unconcious is the sign of a lazy flight crew.

My rule of thumb with sedation is , if I am having a normal conversation in the room and the patient wakes up and participates in the conversation they are not sedated enough, if they open their eyes and go back to sleep I am happy.

Is that for patients who actually need sedation, or the insanity of "any patient with a history of mental illness, regardless of how slight, gets to go to lala land because... well... because we said so, regardless of if the patient actually presents a danger to... well... anyone"?

It is not always seen this way by the medical community

Or is it because the medical community views putting patients under heavy sedation for no better reason than "because" to be malpractice? Alternatively, is it a combination of HEMS induced malpractice and a misunderstanding on the appropriate uses of chemical sedation?

JP you are talking about a medical director who probably this is probably his only gig. Being medical director for your county is a huge job. I don't know how many calls your county runs but I believe your county is pretty big.

They services I was referring to are pretty small. The one where this doc is so involved in may run only 800 calls in a single year.

The total number of calls this director I referred to has to oversee may come to a grand total of about 10K total. Of which maybe 10% need to be reviewed or whatever.

STill pretty lucrative if you ask me.

It is a FTE, but I believe he's also required to maintain a clinical EM job. California is highly regionalized with the regions being either counties or groups of counties. Also the counties themselves generally don't run ambulances (I say "generally" only because I know that LACo staffs a bariatric ambulance with a driver that services can request, but the service has to provide the medical crew).

For my county at least, it's not a traditional medical director job in the sense that the medical director is overseeing the day to day activities of individial paramedics. That largely falls to the base hospitals (each paramedic unit is assigned to a base hospital, and each base hospital has it's own medical director) and the individual services (limited to Air Methods/Mercy Air for HEMS and fire departments currently). It's much more of an executive position than anything else.