Posted on 08/18/2013 12:11:56 PM PDT by BenLurkin
San Francisco's fire chief has explicitly banned firefighters from using helmet-mounted video cameras, after images from a battalion chief's Asiana Airlines crash recording became public and led to questions about first responders' actions leading up to a fire rig running over a survivor.
Chief Joanne Hayes-White said she issued the order after discovering that Battalion Chief Mark Johnson's helmet camera filmed the aftermath of the July 6 crash at San Francisco International Airport. Still images from the footage were published in The Chronicle.
...
Critics, including some within the department, questioned the chief's order and its timing - coming as Johnson's footage raised the possibility of Fire Department liability in the death of 16-year-old Ye Meng Yuan.
The footage shows a Fire Department rig running over the Chinese schoolgirl as she was covered with fire-retardant foam. It also makes clear that Johnson, who was in charge of the firefighting and rescue effort and was directing rig movements, had not been told that Ye was on the ground near the wreckage of the Boeing 777.
...
It is not clear how many San Francisco firefighters and paramedics have such cameras, but their use has spread in recent years. Paramedics, in particular, say having still and video images can be helpful if patients question how they were treated before arriving at a hospital.
(Excerpt) Read more at sfgate.com ...
Some legitimate privacy concerns here, but it sure looks like the SFPD is more concerned about cameras showing what they actually do as compared to what they say they do.
That said, footage taken on department time should not be the property of individual firefighters, and none of it should be released publicly without the consent of those in the videos.
Instead of fixing the problem, they want to ban cameras... got it
I don’t understand. If they’re not doing anything wrong they shouldn’t have anything to hide, right?
Okay, who has the Austin Powers pic?
Bureaucrats always protect themselves, first, last, and always. The privacy excuse would, of course, never be used if video footage supported the Fire Department.
What the hell is that????
Yep, that’s a man, baby. That was my very first thought.
Correct. It’s not that the cameras introduce an element of danger, but that they expose the risk of lawsuits and second-guessing of actions. IOW, the same reason cops give for confiscating the cell phone cameras of citizens.
If they’re not doing anything wrong they shouldn’t have anything to hide, right?
Oh, but it's different when it comes to government!
Dash-cams, helmet-cams and lapels cams are two edged swords. Yes, they can be used to sustain allegations of misconduct against policemen and firemen but, of course, it would never have occurred to the geniuses in S.F. government that they could also be used as the basis of support for liability lawsuits against the city. Therefore, they must “now” go! It’s laughable.
“No witnesses !”
“What the hell is that????”
Why,it’s just your typical diesel dyke political patronage public employee/fire chief.Big liberal cities are loaded down with this useless deadwood.
The liar public official or your own eyes review of raw video. There is areason many in Russia now have dash cams in their private vehicles. The move to total lack of privacy cuts both ways. The gov't needs to be under total surveillance 24/7.
5.56mm
IT”S PAT!
IT”S PAT!
Double post not my fault, site problems.
WHAT?... Nevermind..
And, of course, the first knee-jerk response of any liberal to something they don’t like is to ban it.
Looking at this fire chief though, it’s too bad somebody doesn’t ban her - at least from appearing on tv or photos - it could scare the children.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.