Distasteful but still not on

[TCR4x4]

I still think the Policeman was wrong. Yes, its sad that someone chose to film or photograph instead of helping, but thats the world we live in, some help, some dont.

I have been in a situation where someone was fatally injured. I chose to help, but sadly couldnt do enough, the guy died in my arms. It never once occurred to me to take my camera out, however I was aware of people around me taking photos, and thats their prerogative. I hope they can sleep well at night with those images, because every night when I close my eyes I still see his blood on my hands and his life ebbing away from him.

Ironically, I was actually requested by the coastguard to take pictures, as the tide was coming in and the body needed to be moved. The Police were still some way off and a record needed to be made of the position of the body, and the horrific wounds it suffered.

If the Police had arrived at the scene to find me taking photos without knowing the full story and deleted my images or broke my camera, do you think that would have been morally right?

 

[ZoneV]

...If the Police had arrived at the scene to find me taking photos without knowing the full story and deleted my images or broke my camera, do you think that would have been morally right?

They'd have had a chat with you first, and then the Coastguard, to verify your story.

 

[TCR4x4]

Did they chat to the guy in the OP??? Doesnt sound like it.. How do they know he wasnt asked to take pictures for evidence? All we can go on is some story in a newspaper... We dont know the facts.

 

[ZoneV]

Did they chat to the guy in the OP??? Doesnt sound like it..

Why not?

How do they know he wasnt asked to take pictures for evidence?

Evidence of what?

All we can go on is some story in a newspaper... We dont know the facts.

So, what are we talking about?

 

[WillNicholls]

I appreciate your point, but once again we do not know the motives of the individual concerned, you could well be right. However...
Many of the London 7/7 attack images we broadcast to the world were taken on phone-cameras...

This event was quite clearly on a different level to the 7/7 attacks though.

 

[Lance B]

Scared for life

Did you mean scarred for life?

 

[TCR4x4]

Why not?



Evidence of what?



So, what are we talking about?

This is my point. We have no idea of the facts, so how can we comment on weather or not the guy should be taking photos.
Someone might have seen me taking photos at my incident and come on here saying how disgusting I was.

Did they know that I felt sick to the stomach as I focused on a gaping head wound? Did they know I still have nightmares about it, did they know If I hadn't have done it, then the family of the deceased may never have known what happened to their teenage son...

 

[ZoneV]

This is my point. We have no idea of the facts, so how can we comment on weather or not the guy should be taking photos.
Someone might have seen me taking photos at my incident and come on here saying how disgusting I was.

Did they know that I felt sick to the stomach as I focused on a gaping head wound? Did they know I still have nightmares about it, did they know If I hadn't have done it, then the family of the deceased may never have known what happened to their teenage son...

You're making more of this than is necessary. As I said earlier, if the hero in question feels aggrieved, it's his right to pursue the matter further if he so wishes.

Whilst I respect photographers and photography as a profession, if those scenes affected you that badly then be thankful you were only taking pictures.

 

[TCR4x4]

Whilst I respect photographers and photography as a profession, if those scenes affected you that badly then be thankful you were only taking pictures.

I wasnt, I was trying in vain to save mans life with my rudimentary first aid skills, although he was way past first aid.. I had to throw away my favourite jacket as it was covered in all sorts of things a coat shouldn't be covered in. I just happened to be asked to take photos afterwards as the coastguard bloke saw my camera bag.

 

[odd jim]

Better than to have evidence deleted on the scene.

I'm presuming that you're a HATO then, as you're missing a couple of salient points under PACE.

Definitely not a hato!

 

[odd jim]

Not in the slightest Neil, but if someone is going to imply that they're a police officer then they need to get their facts straight!

What facts are you referring to exactly?

What parts of pace exactly are you referring to?

If you are referring to disclosure rules, it depends on who deeds this as 'evidence'.

Sick, ghoulish, gore perv videoing in my book doesn't count as anything worthwhile, though I'd be sure to seize his phone regardless, everyone wins.

I fail to see your point.

 

[CT]

Did they chat to the guy in the OP??? Doesnt sound like it.. How do they know he wasnt asked to take pictures for evidence? All we can go on is some story in a newspaper... We dont know the facts.

Taking pictures of a dying girl after the event could never be considered evidence - evidence of what? 'Evidence' might be pictures of the movements of the bus and the girl prior to the accident to ascertain whether or not any blame attached to the bus driver. Once the accident has happened everything else is irrelevant. If the newspaper account is accurate and he was trying to take pictures of the girl under the bus then we really don't need to know anything else - no-one would ask him to take those pictures because they would serve no purpose.

 

[goldenlight]

If the police had got there then it's highly likely in this case that the paramedics were either on scene or seconds away. Also, given the situation, amateur first aid would probably have been either very dangerous for both parties or next to impossible.

Given a couple of news reports, I'm inclined to think that it probably was a member of the GBP gore festing, but that still doesn't excuse the pictures being deleted rather than impounded.

Point taken, the video should not have been deleted. But have you never made a mistake or a wrong call under pressure? Can't we cut the police officer some slack on this one? I wouldn't have wanted to be in his shoes in this incident. Given the tragedy I think concerns over the rights or wrongs of deleting the video are of little relevance. It's not like he cynically tried to prevent the lawful reporting of some questionable policing activity which really would have had implications for freedom and civil liberties. I think we're letting the issue get a little out of proportion here. :bang:

 

[goldenlight]

I'm very surprised at how many folk see the deletion of a video as carrying as much weight as the moral issue at hand regarding whether it's right to film the incident in the first place.

Whether it's misplaced machismo borne out of the anonymity of internet forum use, or just people who have a hard-nosed view of how things should be in life, i don't really know. What I do know is that this 'getting the image at all costs' attitude is sooooo not in keeping with the spirit of TP as a general photography forum who's key aim is to teach and bring photographers together.

Well said, Pat!

 

[goldenlight]

Again for the hard of reading:

As to what the content of those photos would have been, would have been a judgement call to be made at the time.

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IF YOU KEEP SHOUTING HARD ENOUGH EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU WILL EVENTUALLY ACCEPT YOU ARE RIGHT?

 

[goldenlight]

Did they chat to the guy in the OP??? Doesnt sound like it.. How do they know he wasnt asked to take pictures for evidence? All we can go on is some story in a newspaper... We dont know the facts.

Asked to take a picture by whom? :shrug: As the policeman was already on the scene surely it would be him that made such a request if it was necessary?

Just a general observation on threads like this based on hearsay or newspaper reports. When we are making comments ourselves we tend to treat the details as facts cast in stone. When someone else makes a comment with which we disagree suddenly it's just some story and we don't know the facts. Don't take this personally, anyone - I'm sure I'm guilty too! :bonk:

 

[DemiLion]

DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT IF YOU KEEP SHOUTING HARD ENOUGH EVERYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH YOU WILL EVENTUALLY ACCEPT YOU ARE RIGHT?

Not in the slightest, but if you go back and read that comment within it's context it makes a bit more sense than when it's orphaned.

Bold isn't shouting btw.

 

[Carter64]

The policeman was legally wrong. The 'photographer' was morally wrong.

 

[goldenlight]

Not in the slightest, but if you go back and read that comment within it's context it makes a bit more sense than when it's orphaned.

Bold isn't shouting btw.

Then why did you orphan it yourself if it doesn't make sense out of context?

Bold in a large font isn't exactly whispering.......

 

[DemiLion]

Then why did you orphan it yourself if it doesn't make sense out of context?

Bold in a large font isn't exactly whispering.......

If you go back and read the post I was requoting myself to emphasis the point.

 

[DemiLion]

The policeman was legally wrong. The 'photographer' was morally wrong.

That is pretty much my thinking as well.

 

[Nuffles]

It's impossible to make a call on this one, from where I'm sitting at least. As many, many others have said we don't know all the facts and one simple omission can totally turn a story around. Yes the guy might have been a bit of a creep but just because the policeman doesn't agree with what's going on doesn't mean he can take the law into his own hands. We have laws in this country because it brings some semblance of peace and order but sometimes laws - need? - to be broken. Whether this incident is one of those times or not is not something that any of us can decide.

I'm pretty sure none of you would want someone filming your daughter's death, but what if there was something on that video that turned the court case around? Again, I'm not defending him, but I think that considering the video was already in existence it might have been as well to review it to see if there was anything that could further the court case that will undoubtedly result from this. Obviously it would be better for everyone if it hadn't been shot in the first place, I'm definitely not saying that it's good that he shot it, but surely putting it to some possible good use is a more productive use of it than simply destroying it, breaking the law in the process?

I'm really trying not to tread on anybody's toes here, but that's how things seem to me.

 

[DemiLion]

What facts are you referring to exactly?

What parts of pace exactly are you referring to?

If you are referring to disclosure rules, it depends on who deeds this as 'evidence'.

Sick, ghoulish, gore perv videoing in my book doesn't count as anything worthwhile, though I'd be sure to seize his phone regardless, everyone wins.

I fail to see your point.

I was referring to the fact that the mobile/camera should have been seized under Sect 19 supported by Sect 23.

The guy dropped a clanger by deleting the footage (although I can understand why he did so) and has left himself wide open for a complaint to be lodged and upheld by the IPCC.

 

[ZoneV]

It's impossible to make a call on this one, from where I'm sitting at least. As many, many others have said we don't know all the facts and one simple omission can totally turn a story around. Yes the guy might have been a bit of a creep but just because the policeman doesn't agree with what's going on doesn't mean he can take the law into his own hands. We have laws in this country because it brings some semblance of peace and order but sometimes laws - need? - to be broken. Whether this incident is one of those times or not is not something that any of us can decide.

I'm pretty sure none of you would want someone filming your daughter's death, but what if there was something on that video that turned the court case around? Again, I'm not defending him, but I think that considering the video was already in existence it might have been as well to review it to see if there was anything that could further the court case that will undoubtedly result from this. Obviously it would be better for everyone if it hadn't been shot in the first place, I'm definitely not saying that it's good that he shot it, but surely putting it to some possible good use is a more productive use of it than simply destroying it, breaking the law in the process?

I'm really trying not to tread on anybody's toes here, but that's how things seem to me.

I see where you're coming from but if the chap's efforts were of any perceived value, he would have been treated differently by the PO.

To defend the chap by suggesting he may have captured some kind of evidence seems to me like clutching at straws, especially considering this seems to be no more than a tragic accident. The PO at the scene would have been in a much better place to assess this and I trust his judgement. It was probably a very easy call to make.

 

[goldenlight]

That is pretty much my thinking as well.

We seem to agree that the policeman was legally wrong, the photographer was morally wrong. I just feel that we're being a bit harsh on the policeman for making a bad call when involved in a horrifying and traumatic incident. For all we know he may have a 12 year old daughter himself, as have I. It cut me up just reading about it.

Yes, he was wrong but in the context of a little girl losing her life does it really matter?

 

[Carter64]

OK but I think I understand the emotive side. Not my strong point but.
The policeman (as already mentioned) should/could have arrested for a public order offence. He'd have been within his rights to do so and as it seems, legitimately so.
They've got a **** job, tbh and I don't think anyone here would disagree. They don't make the law, though, they uphold and enforce.
I'm lead to believe this act was distasteful. That isn't, or shouldn't be the question. The right to report, without fear of reprisal or harm, is a free society. I still think he was a **** (major ****) tbh but it's a freedom we have to live with in order to live free.

 

[goldenlight]

OK but I think I understand the emotive side. Not my strong point but.
The policeman (as already mentioned) should/could have arrested for a public order offence. He'd have been within his rights to do so and as it seems, legitimately so.
They've got a **** job, tbh and I don't think anyone here would disagree. They don't make the law, though, they uphold and enforce.
I'm lead to believe this act was distasteful. That isn't, or shouldn't be the question. The right to report, without fear of reprisal or harm, is a free society. I still think he was a **** (major ****) tbh but it's a freedom we have to live with in order to live free.

Yes, I quite agree. The policeman was wrong. But do we want to slap his wrist or hang, draw and quarter him?

 

[ZoneV]

Yes, I quite agree. The policeman was wrong. But do we want to slap his wrist or hang, draw and quarter him?

Unless the chap doing the filming makes a formal complaint (and something tells me he won't ) then the PO doesn't have anything to answer to.

 

[Carter64]

The policeman? No. he acted illegally. Slap on the wrist. For sure. But even I understand his motives, though can't agree. The low-life? Yes. I have my own rules. This act transgressed even mine.
Sadly, these days are the days when fame an infamy are seen as equals. A short-cut is simply being a dick in the right place.

 

[goldenlight]

Unless the chap doing the filming makes a formal complaint (and something tells me he won't ) then the PO doesn't have anything to answer to.

That's true, but there seems to be an element here who think there should be some kind of retribution. Unless the chap with the phone does make a complaint it's all rather academic, isn't it?

 

[ZoneV]

That's true, but there seems to be an element here who think there should be some kind of retribution. Unless the chap with the phone does make a complaint it's all rather academic, isn't it?

That's exactly how I see it.

And let's face it, he isn't going to, is he?

Imagine walking into your local nic...

"Excuse me, I'd like to make a formal complaint against one of your officers. I was filming under a bus following a fatal RTA..."

I doubt he's that much of a plonker.

 

[goldenlight]

That's exactly how I see it.

And let's face it, he isn't going to, is he?

Imagine walking into your local nic...

"Excuse me, I'd like to make a formal complaint against one of your officers. I was filming under a bus following a fatal RTA..."

I doubt he's that much of a plonker.

On that note, I think it's time for bed. It's probably time to put this thread to bed, too.

 

[ZoneV]

Good call. Goodnight!

 

[Carter64]

+1

 

[cobra_lite]

So we think we're talking here about a pro tog taking a newsworthy clip for the BBC or ITV? On a mobile phone?

BTW I'm well aware that far worse photographers than me earn a living from it, if it means taking these sort of pictures they're welcome to it.

First paragraph of my post answers that.

...(I'm not saying that this incident is an example of that - a tragic road accident is just that and I suspect the only reason it made the news was her connection to a well-known stage production)...

There's a difference between covering an on-going war/conflict and filming under a bus that's just ridden over someone.

Would you fire someone for not getting any close-up "under the wheels" coverage?

First paragraph of my post answers that.

...(I'm not saying that this incident is an example of that - a tragic road accident is just that and I suspect the only reason it made the news was her connection to a well-known stage production)...

There are a lot of members here being very selective in what they choose to read. In fact as an example of internet pedantry this is a pretty good example.

 

[odd jim]

I was referring to the fact that the mobile/camera should have been seized under Sect 19 supported by Sect 23.

The guy dropped a clanger by deleting the footage (although I can understand why he did so) and has left himself wide open for a complaint to be lodged and upheld by the IPCC.

Sec 19/23 PACE maybe if he managed to get footage before police arrived, if not you're on a sticky wicket as you're talking evidence of the offence.

Thats where disclosure rules come into play.

In that respect the rules state it should have been retained and not deleted and i wont argue that, but I'm sure the officer in this instance is a human being first, police officer second. And I'm sure deleting this numpty's footage hasn't affected the case in any way, but who knows. I'm not entering into legal rights and wrongs.

Point is, the idiot shouldn't have been filming the poor girl in the first place.

 

[malo50]

I'm not defending his actions, as I don't know enough about the situation. However I do think that the deletion of the video/photographs was idiotic and that the mobile should have been seized.

Having said that, if I'd have been there, I certainly would have taken photographs with a view of submitting them to the SLP, Streatham Guardian, Standard et al with a mobile if I wasn't carrying my compact as usual. As to what the content of those photos would have been, would have been a judgement call to be made at the time.

If I'd been there I would have taken your camera off you and beat the p**s out of you. I hope that's not too pedantic.

 

[cobra_lite]

If I'd been there I would have taken your camera off you and beat the p**s out of you. I hope that's not too pedantic.

Nothing pedantic about it: this is simply threatening.

And no you wouldn't. If you did, then you would be arrested by the attending officer for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, attempted theft and possible criminal damage.
Are you a complete idiot, malo? If not, please don't make such idiotic comments.

 

[odd jim]

Nothing pedantic about it: this is simply threatening.

And no you wouldn't. If you did, then you would be arrested by the attending officer for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, attempted theft and possible criminal damage.
Are you a complete idiot, malo? If not, please don't make such idiotic comments.

I agree with this - no need to be threatening or aggressive.

Add to this - those sort of actions would certainly make the attending officers job even more difficult - dealing with fights whilst the girl still lays under the bus.

 

[malo50]

Nothing pedantic about it: this is simply threatening.

And no you wouldn't. If you did, then you would be arrested by the attending officer for assault occasioning actual bodily harm, attempted theft and possible criminal damage.
Are you a complete idiot, malo? If not, please don't make such idiotic comments.

You've questioned the provenance of a serving police officer, you've stated that any one who doesn't agree with you is either a bleeding heart or a pedant.
You've also stated that no news outlet would buy your photo's of a dying girl.

I think you've been fairly aggresive yourself. When I dared to try and put my point of view you call me an idiot. As a father, if i saw you or anyone else taking a photograph of a dying girl, for no documentary or evidential reason, maybe I wouldn't slap the snot out of you, but I would certainly have something to say. Please don't tell me what I would or wouldn't do.