[nathanbedford]

The definition and meaning of the "press" is at stake here.

If an individual with a cell phone can be arrested and prosecuted for doing what any television station can and routinely does with impunity, we have foreclosed part of the First Amendment from the general public and we have left ourselves even more dependent on an untrustworthy media.

More, we have left the decision of whether someone is a reporter or merely an officious intermeddler, a despicable voyeur, or a crass commercial opportunists wholly in the hands of the police to be remedied only by successful defense of a criminal charge. Since when has the media, that is the "press" acted other than as officious intermeddlers, despicable voyeurs or crass commercial opportunists?

In a society which is so litigious any good Samaritan is subject to some sort of potential civil liability even if a good Samaritan law exists. Why cannot someone approaching injured people in an automobile in this case film the experience as evidence that is approach and participation were reasonable and not actionable?

One of the most important technological advances that favor democracy is the ubiquity of our cell phones with their cameras. In jurisdiction after jurisdiction the police have demonstrated their hostility to transparency created by these phones. The evidence generated by the accused taking these pictures or films might be very valuable in an action against the third-party who might've caused the accident to catalog the extent of personal injuries. This prosecution takes away from the injured party that tool and for no good reason except to satisfy the moral outrage of the police or to provide expression of their general hostility to citizens with cameras.

[Telepathic Intruder]

Instead calling 911, he used his cell phone to video record the accident, hoping to sell it for profit. He entered the vehicle to video the injured passengers, one of them dying, thinking “what can I get out of this?” And I thought people who slowed down to watch an accident scene were creepy.

[uglybiker]

[jch10]

Creepy, but, exactly what law did he break?

[Partisan Gunslinger]

It’s a form of porn. Hang the creep.

[momtothree]

“I just wanted to educate people to slow down”. No, he didn’t. He wanted to sell the footage to the highest bidding news station. I have read all the FReepers points of view and I get it... the first amendment. However, from the law enforcements point of view— once he entered the vehicle, he disturbed a scene of a crime (possibly vehicular homicide or DWI or whatever). What about a good samaritan entering the vehicle.. in the hopes of offering some sort of aid? I believe that is covered under the Good Samaritan laws.

Now, my personal moral outrage: not all of us.. but some of us no longer see others as valuable. As fellow humans. If this was me.. would I have entered the vehicle to help? Yes.. but because I see some 17 year old teens as someone’s baby.. as a son. I don’t see them as a possible few hundred dollars towards my bank account. If a teen died, I would take comfort in telling his parents that during his final moments here on earth.. he had someone telling him he was okay and help was on the way. That he left this earth with someone at his side vs someone taking a picture for the purpose of selling it. Would that comfort his parents? I don’t know but it would sure as hell comfort me if one of my teens were dying in a car. To know that someone gave a damn would help me.

[CatherineofAragon]

“...the love of many will grow cold.”