Was I out of line?

[Holding Pattern]

Preface: I'm a civilian. The extent of my medical care involves what training I have received through CAP (CPR and AED, Basic first aid.)

On my way to a celebration yesterday. Friend offers to cook dinner. Well, any day I don't have to cook and/or buy dinner is automatically a good one, so I agree and I'm on my merry way. On my way, I see an individual on the ground on a sidewalk with a man standing over her on a phone.

I pull over, confirm the man is on the phone with 911, do an assessment of the situation, then based on that I talked to the individual to keep the individual conscious.

Then the lookey loos show up. Thankfully the EMS show up at the same time (so I could take my attention away from the injured person), but one lookey loo in particular decided to start snapping pictures of the individual on the ground.

I put on my best angry face and told the lookey loo to turn that camera off. Camera was turned off.

-------------------

Now, I would have had far less of an issue of the focus of said camera was on the responders. Or if it was of the scene in general. But taking pictures of someone on the ground... it felt like someone taking advantage of someone that had no ability to stand up for themselves.

Was telling them to turn their cameras off inappropriate? Is there a better way to handle that situation?

[Eclipse]

As a private person just looking to help, you have every right to be indignant about some goober taking pictures on the
street which will almost certainly be posted in near real-time on some "social" media service.

However as a nosy private citizen seeing something interesting on a (presumably) public way, he has the right to
take photos and video.  Common sense and decorum left this society a long time ago, and now TMZ and Zuckerberg's hoodie
rule the media.

https://www.aclupa.org/issues/policepractices/your-right-record-and-observe-police/taking-photos-video-and-audio/

Good on ye' for trying to help, and a lesson why some people won't any more.

[Mitchell 1969]

As a private citizen, you were probably the BEST person to make that request out of a sense of propriety and humanity. Police or EMS doing so would likely have resulted in a challenge of "You can't make me, I have every right..." which is generally true, absent interference with duties.

So, yes, a basic "Hey! Show some class! This isn't entertainment, this is a person in pain!" Or "Would you mind not taking photos? What if this was your sister, or yourself?" is definitely appropriate, in my opinion.

But that's it. Your words can only be requests or reminders. If the amateur paparazzi chooses to ignore them, you're pretty much done.

[NIN]

What Bernie said.

But I think you did the right thing.

[RRLE]

For a contrarian view, would you have done the same thing if the person snapping the photos showed a very prominent press credential?

[Holding Pattern]

For a contrarian view, would you have done the same thing if the person snapping the photos showed a very prominent press credential?

Honestly, until that situation occurs, I won't be able to answer that question.

[Luis R. Ramos]

I do not know why changing the situation to someone with a press credential.

1. That is their job.
2. They take plenty of photos, but usually they publish only appropriate ones unless they are from a tabloid.

[Flying Pig]

I do not know why changing the situation to someone with a press credential.

1. That is their job.
2. They take plenty of photos, but usually they publish only appropriate ones unless they are from a tabloid.

That used to be the case... but it is somehow easier to choke down when its a legit press person vs someone just  doing it to post on FB.  Ive been to pretty gory accidents where people were standing around with their cameras filming people in complete misery. Even as a cop, I had no issues with making my perimeter decently large.   People viewing casualty scenes through the screen of an iphone seem to take on a personality like they are watching a sporting event complete with the loud "OOOOOO's and Ahhhhhhh's" and "Ooooooh!!! OUCH!!!!"  Makes me want to break things.  But as a private citizen-private citizen, unless its a safety issue, Im all for pointing out when people are acting like rubber necking idiots. 

[LSThiker]

I do not know why changing the situation to someone with a press credential.

1. That is their job.
2. They take plenty of photos, but usually they publish only appropriate ones unless they are from a tabloid.

That is not necessarily true.  It is dependent on the country really.  I have seen some fairly gory photos published in non-tabloid newspapers. 

Then again, what is considered appropriate is really dependent.  In the OP scenario, there was not anything particular gory from the reading.  Therefore, the publication of a photojournalist's photo from the incident may be "appropriate" if that were the original scenario.  For example, remember these pictures (links provided without direct images on purpose):

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/11/11/article-2501471-19594E8400000578-211_964x676.jpg
Father carrying his dead daughter after typhoon

http://www.gettyimages.com/pictures/graphic-content-an-iraqi-man-carries-the-body-of-his-news-photo-517617864
Iraqi man carrying dead daughter after a conflict

http://www.gettyimages.com/pictures/palestinian-man-reacts-as-he-carries-the-body-of-his-news-photo-452412732
Palestinian man carrying dead child with journalists in the background taking pictures

http://www.wetindeyonline.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/dskw.jpeg
Rescuer carrying dead infant after Libyan boat sinks


The difference between a journalist and a bystander is one has a purpose that is related to communicating something.  The other is just snapping a photo. 

Taking a picture of an unconscious person is quite variable.  It really does depend on the "artistic"/"journalistic" quality of the image.  That is, I could be snapping a photo of the unconscious person just to get an image of that unconscious person.  Or I could be snapping a photo that portrays the determination or the moment of a bystander jumping into action to help save a person's life. 

True media, not the crap we see a lot of today, was able to change the world through rather powerful photos.   

[RRLE]

The reason I asked is that several news outlets will publish photos taken by amateurs, usually without reimbursement, but some will pay. In either case, the press has no more nor no less rights than anyone else.

My take is that if the person taking the photo is not violating any law, then it is none of my business to step in their business. At best, they might stop taking pictures. Next best, they give you the Flying Finger of Fate with a hearty Up Yours (or worse), worst case scenario - it gets violent. I am not the custodian of anyone else's manners, nor do I think it is a good idea (living in a state with several 100K plus CCW holders and a Stand Your Ground Law) to provoke a confrontation, which is what the OP did.

[Holding Pattern]

The reason I asked is that several news outlets will publish photos taken by amateurs, usually without reimbursement, but some will pay. In either case, the press has no more nor no less rights than anyone else.

My take is that if the person taking the photo is not violating any law, then it is none of my business to step in their business. At best, they might stop taking pictures. Next best, they give you the Flying Finger of Fate with a hearty Up Yours (or worse), worst case scenario - it gets violent. I am not the custodian of anyone else's manners, nor do I think it is a good idea (living in a state with several 100K plus CCW holders and a Stand Your Ground Law) to provoke a confrontation, which is what the OP did.

If a CCW holder wants to shoot me in plain sight of EMS and police for telling them to turn a camera off, they deserve all the incoming fire they are going to get. I'll hit the deck. Fast.

[RRLE]

If a CCW holder wants to shoot me in plain sight of EMS and police for telling them to turn a camera off, they deserve all the incoming fire they are going to get. I'll hit the deck. Fast.

You're assuming they shoot without further provocation. Keep in mind, the OP started the provocation, putting the CCW holder (or anyone with any weapon for that matter) in the right. A harsh verbal response from them and stuff escalates - assume that the original provocateur then throws the first punch or even just crosses the "reasonable man" assumption of bodily harm and the weapons come into play - legitimately. There was absolutely no need for the OP to provoke the confrontation. The photographer was within his legal rights to do what they were doing and it is no one else's business to step into that - whether the second party likes what they doing or not.

[Jaison009]

Every person with a smart phone or device is a reporter now.

For a contrarian view, would you have done the same thing if the person snapping the photos showed a very prominent press credential?

[stillamarine]

Even as a cop, I had no issues with making my perimeter decently large.   

We had a deputy shot the other night and suspects barricaded in house. Of course there is a million cops there. Of course we pushed the perimeter back like 4 blocks. Then 6. My wife said on the news they were complaining about the fact they couldn't see the scene. Oh well.

[EMT-83]

I think your response was spot on. Score one for the guys.

[Holding Pattern]

If a CCW holder wants to shoot me in plain sight of EMS and police for telling them to turn a camera off, they deserve all the incoming fire they are going to get. I'll hit the deck. Fast.

You're assuming they shoot without further provocation. Keep in mind, the OP started the provocation, putting the CCW holder (or anyone with any weapon for that matter) in the right. A harsh verbal response from them and stuff escalates - assume that the original provocateur then throws the first punch or even just crosses the "reasonable man" assumption of bodily harm and the weapons come into play - legitimately. There was absolutely no need for the OP to provoke the confrontation. The photographer was within his legal rights to do what they were doing and it is no one else's business to step into that - whether the second party likes what they doing or not.

I am the OP. I know my AOJs. And I'll reiterate. If after asking someone to stop recording they immediately escalated to opening fire, I'd just hit the deck and let the on site police light up the camera/gun holder. At no time did I present a threat of life or grevious injury that was immediate and unavoidable to the camera holder. At no time was the camera holder unable to retreat. If the response was in any way aggravated towards me I would simply disengage and, should they continue to harrass or attack me the on site police would be able to do as they are trained to deal with such people.

In no way does verbal confrontation justify an armed response. Especially in the case of telling someone to have a little respect and dignity for the injured.

[RRLE]

At no time did I present a threat of life or grevious injury that was immediate and unavoidable to the camera holder. At no time was the camera holder unable to retreat.

In your original post, you stated that you did more than ask, in fact, a reasonable person could interpret what you did as a threat. You wrote:

I put on my best angry face and told the lookey loo to turn that camera off.

Your "best angry face" and you don't see how someone else could see that as a threat. Further, you had no legal authority to tell them to do anything. I also wouldn't put it past someone in the situation that you placed yourself in, to maybe reinforce your illegal order with a little "muscle" or elbowing to get them out of the way or mess up their view of the scene. That would constitute an assault. States may vary, but in Florida and most Stand Your Ground states, there is no legal duty to retreat from a threat. You created the situation and you provoked it. I don't see any reason for any applause due you. You are lucky it didn't escalate further, since you were the provocateur. You know what they say -

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[stillamarine]

At no time did I present a threat of life or grevious injury that was immediate and unavoidable to the camera holder. At no time was the camera holder unable to retreat.

In your original post, you stated that you did more than ask, in fact, a reasonable person could interpret what you did as a threat. You wrote:

I put on my best angry face and told the lookey loo to turn that camera off.

Your "best angry face" and you don't see how someone else could see that as a threat. Further, you had no legal authority to tell them to do anything. I also wouldn't put it past someone in the situation that you placed yourself in, to maybe reinforce your illegal order with a little "muscle" or elbowing to get them out of the way or mess up their view of the scene. That would constitute an assault. States may vary, but in Florida and most Stand Your Ground states, there is no legal duty to retreat from a threat. You created the situation and you provoked it. I don't see any reason for any applause due you. You are lucky it didn't escalate further, since you were the provocateur. You know what they say -

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Even with stand your ground the threat must be of death or great bodily harm. Someone telling you to turn the #$#% camera off is neither so stand your ground all you want, you'll have a prison boyfriend in no time.

[Holding Pattern]

At no time did I present a threat of life or grevious injury that was immediate and unavoidable to the camera holder. At no time was the camera holder unable to retreat.

In your original post, you stated that you did more than ask, in fact, a reasonable person could interpret what you did as a threat. You wrote:

I put on my best angry face and told the lookey loo to turn that camera off.

Your "best angry face" and you don't see how someone else could see that as a threat. Further, you had no legal authority to tell them to do anything. I also wouldn't put it past someone in the situation that you placed yourself in, to maybe reinforce your illegal order with a little "muscle" or elbowing to get them out of the way or mess up their view of the scene. That would constitute an assault. States may vary, but in Florida and most Stand Your Ground states, there is no legal duty to retreat from a threat. You created the situation and you provoked it. I don't see any reason for any applause due you. You are lucky it didn't escalate further, since you were the provocateur. You know what they say -

the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I had no legal authority sure. And they could have told me to go take a hike. But they would have had no legal authority to draw a gun. And again, the moment a gun was drawn I would have just fallen to the ground and let the cops and EMS decide what to do next. If the CCW holder wants to explain away dash cam footage of him shooting someone on the ground... good luck with that jury. If that person got that far.

There is a world of difference between an angry face and a justification for lethal force.

[RRLE]

Even with stand your ground the threat must be of death or great bodily harm. Someone telling you to turn the #$#% camera off is neither so stand your ground all you want, you'll have a prison boyfriend in no time.

I never said the victim's first response would be to draw a gun. I did say that you provoked the confrontation, you even admit to putting on a threatening "face". You have already given the victim reason to have concern if not fear. Your tone, as you describe it, was threatening. Should he respond in kind and you escalate again, then all bets are off. And don't forget - dead men tell no tales. You may be hitting the ground because of a gunshot wound you never saw coming. And he might betting on "better to be tried by twelve, then carried by six." It really isn't a good idea, and certainly nothing to be commended for, going around threatening and bossing people around, who have every legal right to do what they are doing.

Go back to the beginning. You deliberately put on a threatening grimace, you ordered someone to stop doing something they had every right to do and you had no right to order them to do otherwise. You own any and all escalation that might have resulted from this. Consider yourself lucky - this time. The next time you might not be so lucky.