Distasteful but still not on

Status
Not open for further replies.
CT said:
Accordiing to an eye witness -Michelle Lunney.....

Michelle Lunney, 44, who lives nearby, said: ‘The police told us she was late for a dance class and her mum was stuck in traffic, so she got out to run down the hill to her class and was hit.
‘I heard screaming, I thought it was her but it was her mother, she was absolutely hysterical. The most distressing thing was that a man tried to film it – the accident happened and he’s trying to film under the bus.

It seems to be pointless trying to explain to some of you that this officer needed to prioritise his actions, and the girl under the bus clearly took precedence over the guy with the mobile phone. For all we know he was the only officer on the scene - it's a bit difficult to arrest someone who may well turn stroppy while dealing with a fatal road accident! Some of you need to address the practicalities of the situation.

The officer did what he thought was most expedient at the time. It's open of course for this 'photographer' to complain but I bet he hasn't - and wont.
Click to expand...

If the young girl under the bus took precedence, then why the hell did the copper waste time, allegedly, searching for and deleting a mobile phone video?!
 
Jimi said:
If the young girl under the bus took precedence, then why the hell did the copper waste time, allegedly, searching for and deleting a mobile phone video?!
Click to expand...
"IF" she took precedence you say?
 
I really think this is turning into a lot of hot air over nothing. I agree that the officer was wrong to delete the video, but on a scale of wrong it ranks pretty low down and there were mitigating circumstances. It should be brought to his attention for future reference and then let the matter rest, with no further action.

It's then up to the photographer, if he doesn't think that's sufficient, to raise a complaint. It's not up to armchair judges on here to decide things such as "he should be removed from active duty." Hasn't anyone else ever made a minor error in their job? :shrug:
 
Jimi said:
You stated that ' clearly the girl under the bus took precedence'. The point I was trying to illustrate was why did the copper waste time deleting the video?!
Click to expand...

With a hysterical mother at the scene who'd just witnessed the death of her daughter? Do you think it just possible he might have been considering her feelings as well as avoiding the issue blowing into an ongoing Breach Of The Peace? I've seen crowds getting very angry at pro photographers performing at tragic scenes like this and it can get ugly very quickly - very few people would understand the motives of anyone wanting to take pictures of the dead or dying, although we seem to have an unusual congregation of people here who think otherwise. This isn't Afghanistan - it's the local High Street.

He could probably have arrested this guy for conduct likely to cause a BOP - if he had four pairs of hands. The logistics and paperwork in dealing with a fatal RTA is an enormous undertaking - he simply hadn't the time to be arresting this guy.

He couldn't have cautioned him as someone suggested earlier either. Official cautions are administered by senior officers and that takes place after arrest and subsequent interview - IF the offender admits the offence and is willing to accept an official caution. You can't caution someone who doesn't admit the offence!

He dealt with it in what he saw as the most expedient and practical fashion. I'm not saying he was right and when everyone has finished getting so Mr Angry about this, all we have is that newspaper account to say he actually deleted the images anyway.
 
Llamaman said:
So close-up video of someone dying in an RTA is OK as long as they're famous? How famous do they need to be? Should they phone round a few TV stations to gauge interest before they start filming?
Click to expand...

That's not what I said.

It's about proportionality and newsworthiness. You might understand if it was someone famous, I never said it would be right to do so.

I'd like to think a professional news tog would be able to make that judgement based on common sense and experience. I doubt he or she would need to check with the tv or papers to make that judgement.
 
Last edited:
CT said:
With a hysterical mother at the scene who'd just witnessed the death of her daughter? Do you think it just possible he might have been considering her feelings as well as avoiding the issue blowing into an ongoing Breach Of The Peace? I've seen crowds getting very angry at pro photographers performing at tragic scenes like this and it can get ugly very quickly - very few people would understand the motives of anyone wanting to take pictures of the dead or dying, although we seem to have an unusual congregation of people here who think otherwise. This isn't Afghanistan - it's the local High Street.

He could probably have arrested this guy for conduct likely to cause a BOP - if he had four pairs of hands. The logistics and paperwork in dealing with a fatal RTA is an enormous undertaking - he simply hadn't the time to be arresting this guy.

He couldn't have cautioned him as someone suggested earlier either. Official cautions are administered by senior officers and that takes place after arrest and subsequent interview - IF the offender admits the offence and is willing to accept an official caution. You can't caution someone who doesn't admit the offence!

He dealt with it in what he saw as the most expedient and practical fashion. I'm not saying he was right and when everyone has finished getting so Mr Angry about this, all we have is that newspaper account to say he actually deleted the images anyway.
Click to expand...

Well put CT.
 
jamesb84 said:
Ahh, it's been a while since I've been told that.

How i've missed being told I'm scum, and "people like you killed Princess Di".

You know what mate, I'll carry on the way I am thank you. My "lack of morals" pays my rent so you can quite happily swivel...probably while reading The Sun for all it's celeb pap shots.
Click to expand...


:lol:
:thumbs:
 
Think some people are taking this thread a little bit too personally!
 
Sorry, but if someone I have never met decides to make a harsh judgement about my "lack of morals" I'm bound to respond.

Don't like it - don't read it.
 
Jimi said:
If the young girl under the bus took precedence, then why the hell did the copper waste time, allegedly, searching for and deleting a mobile phone video?!
Click to expand...

You beat me to it. I'd like to know the answer to that question as well.
 
I should imagine they had handed her care to the paramedics by that point.
 
Last edited:
CT said:
With a hysterical mother at the scene who'd just witnessed the death of her daughter? Do you think it just possible he might have been considering her feelings as well as avoiding the issue blowing into an ongoing Breach Of The Peace? I've seen crowds getting very angry at pro photographers performing at tragic scenes like this and it can get ugly very quickly - very few people would understand the motives of anyone wanting to take pictures of the dead or dying, although we seem to have an unusual congregation of people here who think otherwise. This isn't Afghanistan - it's the local High Street.

He could probably have arrested this guy for conduct likely to cause a BOP - if he had four pairs of hands. The logistics and paperwork in dealing with a fatal RTA is an enormous undertaking - he simply hadn't the time to be arresting this guy.

He couldn't have cautioned him as someone suggested earlier either. Official cautions are administered by senior officers and that takes place after arrest and subsequent interview - IF the offender admits the offence and is willing to accept an official caution. You can't caution someone who doesn't admit the offence!

He dealt with it in what he saw as the most expedient and practical fashion. I'm not saying he was right and when everyone has finished getting so Mr Angry about this, all we have is that newspaper account to say he actually deleted the images anyway.
Click to expand...



You (and several others) are making one hell of a lot of assumptions!

There were at least 3 serials in attendance from what I can tell so far, and they would have been summoned by 999s and a distress call from the TFL intercom system.

It's not a beat area, and he wouldn't have been single handed on location.
 
DemiLion said:
You (and several others) are making one hell of a lot of assumptions!

There were at least 3 serials in attendance from what I can tell so far, and they would have been summoned by 999s and a distress call from the TFL intercom system.

It's not a beat area, and he wouldn't have been single handed on location.
Click to expand...

A fatal rti is never handled single crewed anyway as they require specialist officers at the scene.
 
odd jim said:
A fatal rti is never handled single crewed anyway as they require specialist officers at the scene.
Click to expand...

You mean a bloke with a white hat, a tape measure and a look of discontentment with life in general? :lol:
 
DemiLion said:
You mean a bloke with a white hat, a tape measure and a look of discontentment with life in general? :lol:
Click to expand...

Lol but yes!!*

(*needs more than a tape measure though!)
 
Last edited:
As photographers I think that some of the 'it's not illegal' so I can film or photo whatever I like and sod the consequences mentality really need to think the situation through a bit further. If the cop had allowed him to film the dying girl and the lad had published it on YouTube or whatever, perhaps sent the film around the mobile cosmos for hundreds to see and for (let's be honest here) some of them to 'enjoy' watching it. What do you really think would happen regarding the precious law of being able to photograph what or who you like? ... Here's what I believe would happen:

Large public outcry against photographers
Media frenzy against photographers
Parliament start introducing laws to protect everyone and everything

I'll leave the rest to your imagination!

The Cop did the 'right' thing. There's lots of things that offend people that are not illegal....Doesn't make it right to do it though.
 
Splog said:
... Here's what I believe would happen:

Large public outcry against photographers
Media frenzy against photographers
Parliament start introducing laws to protect everyone and everything

I'll leave the rest to your imagination!
Click to expand...

Really? I can't remember any of that happening during the 'happy slapping' craze, or similar uTube fests.
 
jamesb84 said:
Sorry, but if someone I have never met decides to make a harsh judgement about my "lack of morals" I'm bound to respond.

Don't like it - don't read it.
Click to expand...


Which is exactly why I have not bought a newspaper since Diana died, I would hate to give any of my money to some publication that would finance some of the "professional" photographers riding their high horse through this thread.
 
fracster said:
Which is exactly why I have not bought a newspaper since Diana died, I would hate to give any of my money to some publication that would finance some of the "professional" photographers riding their high horse through this thread.
Click to expand...

Your token moral rebellion is noted...
We still do quite well without you, thanks Ade...:thumbs:
 
DemiLion said:
Really? I can't remember any of that happening during the 'happy slapping' craze, or similar uTube fests.
Click to expand...

No it didn't.... almost did though!...What did happen was that so called 'happy slapping' was classed as assault and was therefore already covered under the law, several people who have recorded such things have been prosecuted for 'aiding and abetting' the crime.
 
<thread temperature check> overheating </thread temperature check>

As you were :)

Please keep it civil guys.
 
...we need a tumbleweed smiley! :lol:
 
Man, there must be some fingers that have turned to bloody stumps by now, such is the length of this thread....
 
I agree with a lot of the sentiments on the first page of this thread, I can't be bothered to read all 8 pages as I suspect many of the replies are similar.

The policeman made a split second decision and based upon that decision he will be judged. The Internet is full of videos of 'Man with a smashed in head', 'Guy gets knocked off a bike and dies' etc etc, we don't need any more of that and honestly, you can throw the technicalities of the law around all you want, but if you get anything positive at all from a video of a teenage girl dying, then you're plain and simply wrong in the head.
 
iancandler said:
I was reading this story about a young ballerina who was sadly knocked down and killed by a bus the other day, now apart from the sadness at the loss of a young and obviously talented life,I was rather disturbed at the actions of a police officer on the scene.

In the article it states that a guy was filming the scene on his mobile phone, now whilst most would agree that its ghoulish and distasteful at best the actions of the officer where illegal as far as I know in that he seized the phone and deleted the shot footage before sending the person packing.

As said distasteful as it may have been it could set a precedent if his actions are left un challenged, not only that but the footage could have been legally seized as evidence and used to help the inquiry into her death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367523/Girl-12-dies-hit-double-decker-bus.html
Click to expand...

Very tragic story x x
 
Marcel said:
but we should let morality guide the letter of the law.
Click to expand...

Well put argument, however, I do have to disagree!

Funnily enough a couple of months back I answered a question in my course on illegal vs. immoral acts, the same thing which seems to be getting covered here. Whilst I'm not allowed to post my essay answer in public my summary argument was:

Illegal acts are generally those that have scope to cause damage to the public.

Murder is illegal and immoral, for obvious reasons.

Speeding on an empty motorway with no other cars around is also illegal, but I wouldn't say it's immoral.

Cheating on your partner is massively immoral, but not illegal. Even though I'd much rather my partner was caught speeding than cheating on me.

I'd say immoral acts rely on us, the public to dish out our own disapproval to dissuade those from committing said acts. Whereas obviously illegal acts, however trivial and arguably moral, rely on the justice system to enforce.

So whilst I agree with you Marcel in regards to everyone should try to deter immoral behaviour, I don't agree that the law should follow suit. Who's morals would be follow? I think morals are too culture specific. Arranged marriages, fidelity, the role of women (I'm pro-woman), the treatment of children are all things from a huge list in which a multicultural society like ours just cannot meet in the middle ground over.
 
Answering a separate question, I suspect the policeman would have grabbed the phone and destroyed its contents regardless of whether they'd been standing there as a police officer, or as a taxi driver.
 
iancandler said:
I was reading this story about a young ballerina who was sadly knocked down and killed by a bus the other day, now apart from the sadness at the loss of a young and obviously talented life,I was rather disturbed at the actions of a police officer on the scene.

In the article it states that a guy was filming the scene on his mobile phone, now whilst most would agree that its ghoulish and distasteful at best the actions of the officer where illegal as far as I know in that he seized the phone and deleted the shot footage before sending the person packing.

As said distasteful as it may have been it could set a precedent if his actions are left un challenged, not only that but the footage could have been legally seized as evidence and used to help the inquiry into her death.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1367523/Girl-12-dies-hit-double-decker-bus.html
Click to expand...

someone has to stand up for moral over lagal... give the policeman a medal i say


when will photographers and everyone else realise... just because you can... doesnt mean you should.... i dont care what you printed out and laminated ready to show all an sundry what your allowed...theres a line and the polcemann saw it!



DISCCLAIMER: Its sunday night.. I have had a drink.. bu pretty sure i will agree wiht me in the morning :)
 
why are we posting in a thread that's over a year old?

It was argued to death and several of the people in here have since been banned.
 
Harvey_nikon said:
why are we posting in a thread that's over a year old?

It was argued to death and several of the people in here have since been banned.
Click to expand...

Didn't even notice the dates! Sorry I thought Marcels comment was from yesterday. *feels very stupid*

Unsure why the comment that revived it was made by Amy? It didn't really add much!
 
Last edited:
While I agree that the copper was morally right to delete the video, but never the less it was illegal. What would all the papers be saying if an accredited photo journalist happened to be walking by and snapped a few newsworthy photos. Would he then be villified for doing his 'job', I doubt it. But on the other hand, I doubt whether the journalist would of concentrated his photos on the victim, but on the overall situation.

I've taken photos at an accident site, where nobody was badly injured I hasten to add, as a 'just in case evidence was needed' situation. I've since deleted the photos as none were needed as one of the drivers admitted fault. I did take photos of the people in 'situ' but there was no gore in my situation, although there were some obvious injuries. I was actually thanked by the police officer investigating the incident for recording the scene and helping with enquiries.
 
I'm kind of split on opinion, there's no justifiable cause in this mobile phone footage being captured by a member of the public other than to satisfy ones morbid curiosity. However on the other hand there's TV documentaries that show (sometimes in detail) patients in similar circumstances with the entire procedure of extraction, immobalisation, and treatment that nobody bats an eyelid at.

Having had experience of the public during a extraction phase you can never compensate for individual opinions, nor can you compensate for the idiocy of a handful who fail to realize that what they are seeing ISN'T a movie and where to stop recording/imaging under human compassion.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top