Ohio man arrested after recording video of teens in deadly crash

abc13.com ^ | July 16, 2015 | KTRK

[Berlin_Freeper]

Police said a man witnessed a horrible car crash. What happened next, just downright cold behavior, according to police.

[nathanbedford]

If he did this to my son he’s be feeding the crabs in a short amount of time.

Would you indeed? If your son were severely injured would you not be exhorting his lawyer to get the graphic evidence of your sons pain, suffering and injuries to use in civil trial?

It does no good to state your conclusion to the issue at hand and then wrap yourself in indignant righteousness to prove you are right.

I agree with you, the man is a creep, full stop. My argument has to do with an interpretation of the freedom of the press clause of the First Amendment and whether we should countenance a situation which might lead to restricting that right to the establishment media rather than protecting it for all of us.

I believe the principle is more important than punishing a creep because I have high regard for the Bill of Rights. I fear subjectivism, it is a tool of the left and it has been used so effectively against us. The danger to the democratization of the media through the Internet is very real, we have recently seen the Obama administration move to take over the Internet by regulation. read the transcript of Matt Drudge's appearance before the national press club to know Hillary's desire to control the social media.These questions are larger than the incident which generates them.

[driftdiver]

Yes I would indeed. I’d be far more interested in helping minimize someone’s injuries then collection of so called evidence.

We have a moral duty to those around us. A duty which comes from the same place those rights you’re worried about come from, God.

[driftdiver]

Go look it up yourself. You’re wrong on this one and painting yourself into a corner. Now you’re lashing out in hopes of not having to eat crow.

[trebb]

Context? There is no "Noble Cause" clause in the Constitution and what Nathan wrote was spot-on. When we let our sensibilities get in the way of Constitutional Freedoms and protections, we end up with the mess we have today. Cops aren't legally bound to help/protect us - why should a regular citizen (even a vile one) be held to higher standards?

We are in our current dilemma because folks let their emotions override their senses due to some for of outrage and we end up with the attitude that was funny once, but is now a sign of what went wrong when we exclaim, "There oughta be a law"

If you want to force a creep to act as you would, then you also must ordain that some asshole can legislate that you act like him.

[2ndDivisionVet]

I he had entered the automobile to attempt to “save” the two young men, would the police be charging him with a crime?

[nathanbedford]

Bullshit!

You made the assertion, you back it up and stop being so damn childish when called on it.

[nathanbedford]

By the police own admission, they would not.

However, I ask you to consider this reply and this

[Taliesan]

Implied consent is where the clarity lies on this one. You’re right, the police don’t get to decide who is the press and who is not. But if you enter private property for some purpose other than one the owners may presume to be consenting to - and you may reasonably be expected to understand the owners’ wishes - you’re a criminal. You enter my house to dowse a fire you saw from the street and you’re my friend. You enter my house to film the fire and you’re a burglar.

This applies to people with “New York Times” cards in their wallets just as well.

[abb]

As an interesting observation sometime, go to court one day, sit on the front row with a notepad and pen. Watch the looks you get from the bailiffs, the judge, the lawyers, the clerks. It’s as if you were a man from mars.

I’ve spent more time in court in the last five years covering trials and hearings, that the rest of my 65 years combined.

The Man does not like interlopers intruding into his domain, not one bit!

[uglybiker]

[Smokin' Joe]

Consider, please, that rights are not removed from the mainstream, but from those at the apparent fringes of human behaviour.

The First Amendment is soundly under attack: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,...

...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...

Court Rulings in re bakers refusing to bake cakes which violate their religious beliefs.(right, not Congress, but legislation from the bench).

...or abridging the freedom of speech,...

"hate speech"

and of late, the Confederate Battle Flag(not Congress, but media manipulation of human behaviour through Alinsky Tactics and misinformation--

...or of the press;...

Who is the press, and where is that line drawn?--Remember it was the Ohio State Police cooperated in the production of such driver's Ed favorites as Signal 30. Who decides who can report what, and is that a violation of the Right?

... or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,...

A Waco, Texas CoC&I meeting, until someone started shooting bikers--177 arrested on identical carbon copy charges, 9 dead, roughly 20 wounded, the living held on 1 million dollars bail each, property and vehicles seized. Two thirds with no prior records, and very little information forthcoming after nearly 2 months.. net effect: to discourage motorcycle riders from congregating.

...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

As yet generally ignored rather than attacked.

While few of these are 'actionable' instances (Congress didn't do it), the implications are plain: do it the way those complaining want or you will be reviled (Alinsky) and those who might have sided with you will slink off or just avoid you instead.

By making 'examples', the targeted belief or behaviour can be hammered into the ground like the Militia movement was after the implications were made that members were all terrorists and somehow connected with the Oklahoma City Bombing. The meme of the white, Christian, gun-toting hometown terrorist persists to this day ("bitter clingers").

Even the howls of outrage over Waco (Branch Davidian Massacre) were muted and the surge of support for Assault Weapon Ban repeal went dead in the water--that's how effective the media campaign was.

As for this case, as former EMS, I think the guy should have stayed out of the vehicle unless he was there to render aid. He should have called first responders and rendered aid if he knew enough.

I find his actions callous and execrable, his statements in re: profit motive questionable, and his filming of a young person in pain a shining example of complete disregard for human dignity and the feelings of the survivors. Calling them "idiots" (no matter how true) reeks of insensitivity, given the circumstances.

But where would you draw that line? Is there some definite behaviour you would outlaw? (Trespass in a vehicle, okay, I get that.)

Or would that remain at the discretion of whatever official entity is present?

YouTube has the last moments of people enshrined in video, just not so up close and personal. Is it okay if you only show the vehicle burning up or the plane crashing, but not the crispy critters or shredded remains? Is that the place?

There are hours of criminal behaviour video which have been available on the web, from shootings to beatings to a naked guy on bath salts chewing off a guy's face (wounds which proved mortal).

The point is that either we jealously safeguard the Rights of those we may not agree with (like Gerry Spence did representing Randy Weaver pro bono despite not agreeing with Weaver's worldview, just that his rights had been grossly violated), or the subjective boundaries of what is and isn't a Right will be moved until our ox is the one getting gored.

When we are afraid to practice the Rights we have, they are effectively lost.

As for Signal 30 and the other driver's ed shock films, is just okay when they do it?

[MaxMax]

During the 1900 Hurricane in Galveston photographers were going around taking
pictures of the dead naked women. They were hanged immediately by the
neck until dead.

Sure they had the right, but not to a sane society.

[knarf]

A fascinating thread and back and forth between you two

I think the subject/argument here is at the crux of our turmoil in America

We have the clinical interpretation of a matter and the filtered interpretation

I'm not going to pick a side right now because this is something I, and I think a lot more than want to admit to, battle frequently

SHOULD we see a day of reporting every 9/11 ?

Personally, I think we should, though I knew nothing about the jumpers until well after the event, which added another dimension to the reporting

See what I mean ?

I would REALLY like other FreepeRs to jump in on this

I think it is an important subject to explore

[mad_as_he$$]

Watch the movie “Nightcrawler”. It is on Netflix.

[rlmorel]

Nightcrawler...I watched it about a week ago, and when I saw this thread, that was exactly the first thing I thought of.

It was indeed an extraordinarily creepy movie.

In my opinion, as much as I detest having to take the side of it, the guy can film, and should not be arrested. Does that make him a low-life, lower than whale crap, unworthy of having his face shown in public? If we had a society that shunned people for their behavior instead of accepting nearly anything that goes...yes.

On the other hand, I don’t have a problem with the police arresting the guy on any technicality whatsoever once he went over and opened the door, or when he taunted them while they were trapped in the wreckage. That made me sick to read.

[mad_as_he$$]

I agree with your position on the OP. Nightcrawler left me with a very uneasy feeling and I already have a great amount of disdain for the way the press operates in this country..

[jch10]

Creepy, but, exactly what law did he break?

[rlmorel]

What I see is an issue of morality, and how the lack of a moral compass not only in the US but in all Western countries, has led us reading about this type of behavior today.

If I saw a plane on fire and plummeting to the ground, would I whip out my phone and take a picture? I might do it because I am miles away, but taking photos like that isn’t my thing anyway. But I could see doing it just to give to investigators. The last thing I would do is hawk it to a bidder, but like war, having never been in one, I have no idea how I would react to combat, and in this case, if one of the alphabet news organizations offered me $50K for the image, would I take them up on it?

I just don’t know. I will say, though, taking a photo under the circumstances above would be the last thing on my mind, but if I did, I wouldn’t have any moral qualms about it.

If there were people tumbling out of the plane? No.

And if I came across the scene of the crash, would I film the flaming wreckage as I walked towards it? Absolutely not. That wouldn’t even enter my mind.

Filming of the jumpers on 9/11? No. I would consider that crossing the line, and I think people who did that are ghouls, not to mention the people who took pictures of the jumper’s bodies.

Living in a constitutional republic effectively requires a moral compass to function normally and be self-sustaining, and we, as a nation, seem not to have one anymore (at least one that guides us towards what would be considered positive aspects of Judeo-Christian values) which does not bode well for us or the world.

In a moral society, this would not even be a question.

[rlmorel]

It filled me with disgust watching it, but I already view the media in this country as ghouls anyway, and watching the move only reinforced my beliefs, even if it was only a fictional movie.

Don Henley wrote a song (I know he is a brain-dead uber liberal) called “Dirty Laundry”, which I think is spot on, particularly the stanza about the bubble-headed bleached blonde. When you hear the idiot broadcasters say: “The next scenes we will show you are very graphic and disturbing, viewer discretion is advised...” you just know they have a gleam in their eye, and they say that to ensure that people won’t change the channel. It panders to the basest of human emotions, the curiosity most humans have about injury and death to their fellow humans.

“Dirty Laundry”

I make my living off the evening news
Just give me something
Something I can use
People love it when you lose
They love dirty laundry

Well, I coulda been an actor
But I wound up here
I just have to look good
I don’t have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear
Give us dirty laundry

Kick ‘em when they’re up
Kick ‘em when they’re down
Kick ‘em when they’re up
Kick ‘em all around

We got the bubble headed
Bleached blonde
Comes on at five
She can tell you ‘bout the plane crash
With a gleam in her eye
It’s interesting when people die
Give us dirty laundry

Can we film the operation
Is the head dead yet
You know the boys in the newsroom
Got a running bet
Get the widow on the set
We need dirty laundry

Dirty little secrets
Dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers
In everybody’s pie
We love to cut you down to size
We love dirty laundry

We can do the Innuendo
We can dance and sing
When it’s said and done
We haven’t told you a thing
We all know that Crap is King
Give us dirty laundry

[mad_as_he$$]

Yup and he wrote that what 20-25 years ago? It has only gotten worse.