Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Video Shot by Ga. Firefighter Angers Crash Victim's Family

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
    I'd like to see a prosecutor make an attempt in this case.
    I doubt very much that this is ever going to happen. By all accounts, they didn't do anything illegal. It's questionable whether they even violated any department policies.

    We all know that being stupid isn't a crime.

    The best thing that could come out of this is a reminder that, since common sense isn't all that common, we all should have and enforce policies about taking pictures at incidents and what happens to those pictures afterwards.
    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
    sigpic
    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
      I doubt very much that this is ever going to happen. By all accounts, they didn't do anything illegal. It's questionable whether they even violated any department policies.

      We all know that being stupid isn't a crime.

      The best thing that could come out of this is a reminder that, since common sense isn't all that common, we all should have and enforce policies about taking pictures at incidents and what happens to those pictures afterwards.
      Best answer

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by fire49 View Post
        Made Nancy grace tonight 10/19
        Why would anyone waste their breath watching this show?
        "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
          .The best thing that could come out of this is a reminder that, since common sense isn't all that common, we all should have and enforce policies about taking pictures at incidents and what happens to those pictures afterwards.
          After pictures surfaced on the union website of an abandoned mill fire here - taken from the tip of an aerial, by firefighters, the chief of that career department put out a policy prohibiting same - and made it a point that the policy applied to volunteer firefighters responding into that city as well.

          Ironically, that occured not long after the same chief used a picture I took to illustrate a story for FH about another fire in the same city. A picture I would not have been able to take under his policy...
          Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

          Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

          Comment


          • #35
            Distastefull yes, sharing it in a bar? wrong. I had a long response written the deleted it all. I dont see anyway to punish for this case, but lets not over react. I saw an interview with the parents and they mentioned banning first responders from having cell phones. They said" they have radios to communicate", dont need phones.. Lets not get into such a tizzy that some lawmaker bans us from carrying cell phones. That would be typical stupid government type response. and then were would we be? I use my phone alot at fire scenes.
            Last edited by firemanpat29; 10-20-2010, 09:35 AM. Reason: spelling

            Comment


            • #36
              All you legal experts (at least I admit to not being one) can review this and give me your legal opinions. I don't know exactly if this would be applied, but I can say that this could easily be amended to include such acts.

              Yes, I do realize this is a NJ statute.


              OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
              (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2)
              2C:30-2. Official Misconduct. A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:

              a. He commits an act relating to his office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of his official functions, knowing that such act is unauthorized or he is committing such act in an unauthorized manner; or
              b. He knowingly refrains from performing a duty which is imposed upon him by law or is clearly inherent in the nature of his office.
              In order for you to find the defendant guilty of official misconduct, the State must prove each of the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

              (1) That the defendant was a public servant at the times and dates alleged in the indictment, and
              (2) That the defendant committed an act relating to (his/her) office knowing that it was unauthorized, or committed the act in an unauthorized manner, or that the defendant knowingly refrained from performing an act which (he/she) was required to perform as part of (his/her) office, and
              (3) That the defendant's purpose in (committing the act) (failing to perform the act) was to benefit (himself/herself) or another, or to injure or deprive another of a benefit.

              (PUBLIC SERVANT)
              First, the State must prove that the defendant was a public servant at the time and date the offense was allegedly committed.
              A public servant is defined as any employee of government, including any branch, subdivision, or agency of this State or any locality within it.1

              (UNAUTHORIZED ACT)
              Second, the State must prove that the defendant committed an act relating to (his/her) office but constituting an unauthorized exercise of (his/her) official functions, knowing that such act was unauthorized, or that (he/she) committed such act in an unauthorized manner. This provision requires that the "act" in question relate to the public servant's office and that it constitute an unauthorized2 exercise of (his/her) official functions. The public servant must know that the act was unauthorized or that the act was committed in an unauthorized manner.

              or
              (FAILURE TO PERFORM REQUIRED ACT)
              Second, the State must prove that the defendant knowingly refrained from performing a duty which was imposed upon (him/her) by law or was clearly inherent in the nature of (his/her) office. This provision refers to a public servant who knowingly refrains from performing an official non-discretionary duty which is imposed upon (him/her) by law, or which is clearly inherent in the nature of (his/her) office. The duty to act must be so clear that the public servant is on notice as to the standards that (he/she) must meet. In other words, the failure to act must be more than a failure to exhibit good judgment. In addition, the State must prove that the defendant knew of the existence of (his/her) non-discretionary duty to act prior to the incident in question.3

              (BENEFIT OR HARM)
              Third, the law requires that (the act in question) (the defendant's failure to perform a required act) be done either to benefit (himself/herself) or another, or to injure or deprive another of the benefit.
              Benefit means a gain or advantage, or anything regarded by the beneficiary as a gain or advantage, including a pecuniary benefit or a benefit to any other person or entity in whose welfare (he/she) is interested.
              Harm means loss, disadvantage, or injury or anything so regarded by the person affected, including loss, disadvantage or injury to any other person or entity in whose welfare he or she is interested.
              A person acts purposely with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or a result thereof if it is the person's conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. A person acts purposely with respect to attendant circumstances if the individual is aware of the existence of such circumstances or the individual believes or hopes that they exist. One can be deemed to be acting purposely if one acts with design, with a purpose, with a particular object, if (he/she) really means to do what (he/she) does.
              A person acts knowingly with respect to the nature of (his/her) conduct or the attendant circumstances if a person is aware that (his/her) conduct is of that nature, or that such circumstances exist or a person is aware of a high probability of their existence. A person acts knowingly with respect to a result of (his/her) conduct if a person is aware that it is practically certain that (his/her) conduct will cause such a result. One is said to act knowingly if one acts with knowledge, if one acts consciously, if one comprehends (his/her) acts.

              (CONCLUSION)
              In conclusion, the defendant may not be found guilty unless the State has proven the three elements discussed above beyond a reasonable doubt. Should you conclude that the State has metits burden, you must find the defendant guilty. Should you conclude that the State has failed to meet its burden with regard to any element of this offense, the defendant must be found not guilty.
              Last edited by ChiefKN; 10-20-2010, 10:06 AM.
              I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

              "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

              "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by MemphisE34a View Post
                And there in lies the problem. No offense Chief, but it sounds like your line between reality and CSI Miami is getting a little blurred.
                No blurring at all. I admit outright that I'm not a legal expert.

                Something others here should consider doing when giving a definitive opinion on the matter.

                Having children and having responded to these sort of tragedies gives me a healthy amount of empathy for this family. Yes, I'm angry.
                I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                Comment


                • #38
                  The "purpose" at the very top defining offical misconduct is what makes it really gray for me. Certainly he had no intent to injure or deprive anybody of anything, or that's what I want to think. I also doubt that he thought there was any real benefit in it for him. I haven't heard it said he's tried to sell the video or offer it to any news or tabloid organization. Sadly, I think it was just a stupid, unthinking move.
                  All Pit Bulls are not bad dogs. All bad dogs are not Pit Bulls.

                  Resist ignorance. Educate - Inspire.
                  www.badrap.org

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by tree68 View Post
                    Ironically, that occured not long after the same chief used a picture I took to illustrate a story for FH about another fire in the same city. A picture I would not have been able to take under his policy...
                    Sadly, the fire service is notorious for absolute policies that throw the baby out with the bath water. It's easier to enforce all or nothing rules than rules that require judgement so, all too often, administrations opt for black and white rules out of sheer laziness.
                    "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                    sigpic
                    The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                      OFFICIAL MISCONDUCT
                      (N.J.S.A. 2C:30-2)
                      2C:30-2. Official Misconduct. A public servant is guilty of official misconduct when, with purpose to obtain a benefit for himself or another or to injure or to deprive another of a benefit:
                      No need to read beyond the first paragraph, Chief. I don't claim to be a lawyer but I know enough about legal language as it appears in codes and standards to see the red flag in this one instantly.

                      "With purpose." Even if we assume that an injury has been given within the meaning of the regulation, it has to be intentional. What are the odds of proving that the parties in question intentionally set out to injure the deceased's family by taking a picture at an incident scene and then sharing it? Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

                      Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                      Having children and having responded to these sort of tragedies gives me a healthy amount of empathy for this family. Yes, I'm angry.
                      Rightly so. That's simply not enough to warrant criminal charges.
                      "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                      sigpic
                      The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                        No need to read beyond the first paragraph, Chief. I don't claim to be a lawyer but I know enough about legal language as it appears in codes and standards to see the red flag in this one instantly.

                        "With purpose." Even if we assume that an injury has been given within the meaning of the regulation, it has to be intentional. What are the odds of proving that the parties in question intentionally set out to injure the deceased's family by taking a picture at an incident scene and then sharing it? Never attribute to malice what can be explained by stupidity.

                        Rightly so. That's simply not enough to warrant criminal charges.
                        Oh, they could still be charged and a jury could review if there was a purpose to harm, etc.

                        I understand your point.
                        I am now a past chief and the views, opinions, and comments are mine and mine alone. I do not speak for any department or in any official capacity. Although, they would be smart to listen to me.

                        "The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list."

                        "When tempted to fight fire with fire, remember that the Fire Department usually uses water."

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by ChiefKN View Post
                          Oh, they could still be charged and a jury could review if there was a purpose to harm, etc.
                          Anybody could be charged with anything. Having a case as a matter of law is another story. In all the stories about this case that I've read, there's nothing to suggest that there was any intent to harm anyone; just a couple of thoughtless acts that could very well have gone totally unremarked if it weren't for pure bad luck.
                          "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                          sigpic
                          The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I think we all agree that this was a bone-headed stupid thing to do. Is it illegal that is up to the courts to decide. As for any action to be taken against the fire fighters both the one who took the photo and the other who shared it, that is up to their department as far as what will if anything will be done to them.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by DeputyMarshal View Post
                              Anybody could be charged with anything.
                              While the FF's in question can't be charged if there is no law for them to be charged under (which hasn't really been determined yet, from what I read), they can certainly be sued in civil court. A sympathetic judge and/or jury could make it very expensive for all involved. People like to put a price on having their feelings hurt.

                              The move was certainly bone-headed, but lacking set policy and/or law, methinks a lawsuit is about the only 'punishment' that can be meted out.
                              Opinions my own. Standard disclaimers apply.

                              Everyone goes home. Safety begins with you.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by tree68 View Post
                                they can certainly be sued in civil court. A sympathetic judge and/or jury could make it very expensive for all involved. People like to put a price on having their feelings hurt.
                                As above, anyone can be sued for anything. The issue here would be whether the firefighters in questions had any reasonable expectation of causing harm or any legal duty to act otherwise than they did. That would probably be a tough case to make and it would, inevitably, be a case of suing the department as well as the individuals. IMHO, it would take a pretty canny ambulance-chasing shyster to make a good case of it.

                                The move was certainly bone-headed, but lacking set policy and/or law, methinks a lawsuit is about the only 'punishment' that can be meted out.
                                Agreed. That or just a good old fashioned azz chewing...

                                The sobering thought is that there are almost unquestionably many, many more such pictures floating around that simply haven't had the bad fortune of finding their way back to the families of those involved.
                                Last edited by DeputyMarshal; 10-20-2010, 05:04 PM.
                                "Nemo Plus Voluptatis Quam Nos Habant"
                                sigpic
                                The Code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules.

                                Comment

                                300x600 Ad Unit (In-View)

                                Collapse

                                Upper 300x250

                                Collapse

                                Taboola

                                Collapse

                                Leader

                                Collapse
                                Working...
                                X