Bystanders with Cell phones and taking pictures

[JPINFV]

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.

[DwayneEMTP]

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.

[JPINFV]

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?

[Just Plain Ruff]

No the original discussion point was not that the scenario so to speak was that you worked at a governmental agency but that was not made clear. My circumstance was that I was working for a private entity.

So no government involved except for the law enforcement and fire department which was simply there doing a washdown of the fluids from the cars.

My crew were working in a non-governmental capacity.

So I think we've gone far enough on the original topic so let's take this one step further.

Say you are the patient, You are the walking wounded and you are being photographed by someone. You have a couple of gashes on your head, you've been examined by the ems crew and you've signed a refusal. The guy is still snapping pictures of you. This is you personally. Not your patient. Not your family member. It's you. Do you have a issue with someone taking photographs of you in your moment of let's say weakness or less than say stellar moment? Do you have an issue with someone photographing you?

Do you allow it to happen or do you do something about it? Same rules go here. We have established that we have no right to privacy in public as set aside by the Supreme court.

What are your responses to the photographer?

Keep in mind AK's request about violence and how you would respond to this photographer. This is no longer on the job. The sky's the limit on your response.

Or has this thread gone on long enough? I'm curious as to what responses will be.

I for one don't think that anyone should be able to take pictures of me for any reason and I'm probably going to try to go and get the camera and get my pictures deleted. There is no reason why this guy needs a picture of me if he doesn't know me. So I'll probably go after the camera. And since I have a head injury I can claim that the head injury caused my judgement to be impaired. It probably won't hold up in court and I'll pay a fine and pay to replace the guys phone if his phone is damaged or destroyed in the ensuing struggle.

But that's just what I might do, unless faced with the situation I won't know for sure.

[A Pox On This Place]

Former reporter, listening to this discussion. I have opinions but I choose not to share them. I'm being good (NO! Don't put the leeches on again! I've been a Good Boy!)

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.

What happened to trust, respect, reticence, modesty, confidentiality and humility? Of the great medical people I've met in my life, the best freakin' providers, from M.D. to nanny seem to share thosee qualities.

[JPINFV]

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.

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

...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.

[A Pox On This Place]

First they came for the communists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,

and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me

and there was no one left to speak out for me.

...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.

And you want to practice medicine? Wow. I'd apologized to you publicly for snapping at you, and now I'm a Fascist? Really?

I'd say you're something less than a man. But certainly a med student, right? That's likely enough for you.

Edited June 5, 2012 by A Pox On This Place

[JPINFV]

Edit:

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

Edited June 5, 2012 by JPINFV

[akflightmedic]

How does anyone claim the ambulance is in private function?

It is de facto government organization if it has been retained, hired, authorized or certified to provide service within that tax base area.

The only private ambo scenario I can conceive is one in which the ambulance has a contract with a long term facility or a hospital, is called by them directly, responds and transports either to or from their business. Then, they may have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

Other than that, if you are 911 and in the open...there is no expectation of privacy and you are a government agency.

[Kiwiology]

I did not read any of the previous bullshit for I feared if I did I would rage out, have a stroke and want to bludgeon somebody to death in a way that dehumanises them so horrifically even those most hardened crime scene investigators off 48 Hours would be sickened into early retirement

Anyway, if the patient is in public then they may be filmed and it is legal to do so, the police, ambulance officers or the patient can request they move away if it interfering with scene management or hold up some sheets but if its in private them consent should be gained from the appropriate person and it is not unreasonable for it to be declined e.g. up until probably 10 years ago whenever documentary crews went out with the ambulance service they stayed outside at cardiac arrests