Skip to content


Somebody gets it. Somebody doesn’t. Running from reporters & the issues just doesn’t work.

5 comments

Do you want to sell a rig? Click HERE to find out how with SellFireTrucks.com.

Click here to watch the video

Don’t run. Don’t hide. Words to live by when you are a public official who has to deal with bad news on your watch. It’s very rare you will make the situation better by forcing reporters to do an ambush interview and then running away from them on camera. And probably more important than all of this, is finding a way to deal directly with a citizen who believes they have been wronged by your agency, especially one who has lost a loved one.

The man in the picture is Collier County, Florida EMS Chief Walter Kopka. He is trying to get away from a TV reporter outside a public meeting. Kopka has been dealing with the fallout from a delayed ambulance response in December when Charles Minard’s son died. Minard wants some answers and doesn’t think he is getting them. WFTX-TV reporter Matt Grant has also been trying to get answers. On Wednesday they both confronted Kopka at a public meeting and it wasn’t their first time. Click here to see the results. They aren’t pretty.

The only bright spot comes near the end when Capt. Andrea Schultz with the East Naples Fire Rescue District decides to step in and do the right thing. We certainly don’t know all the ins and outs of this story other than what WFTX-TV is reporting. But we do know who looks responsive to Mr. Minard, the TV reporter and ultimately the public and who doesn’t.

We also know that this story has been going on for almost five months with report after report. In the story before this, Walter Kopka called police to get Minard and Grant removed from the property. Here are links to the previous coverage:

There are many factors that could be behind the manner in which Walter Kopka is responding to this incident. Kopka could be under orders by a boss or legal counsel not to talk. It could be he is fed up with the father and the reporter. It could be ego and pride. But when bad stuff happens, until you admit mistakes were made, apologize, explain those mistakes and how they will be corrected to both the victims and the public, it isn’t likely you or your organization will be able to finally look at the bad news in the rear view mirror.

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit “like”)

Man behind most popular helmet-cam video ever finally speaks. Impact of wounded Army Pfc. Ted Daniels’ firefight video has interesting similarities to firefighter videos.

8 comments

Are you keeping up with STATter911.com on Facebook? You will find more fire & EMS news & videos by clicking here & choosing “like”.

Does this sound familiar? The posting of a helmet-cam video to YouTube causes the videographer’s bosses to question if the clip is appropriate and brings up concerns about the impression it leaves on civilians. The person who wore the helmet-cam also finds out there are plenty of people on the Internet willing to tell him about all the mistakes he made in the video.

We have seen a bunch of firefighter produced helmet-cam videos which have made fire chiefs unhappy, often pushing them to craft new camera policies for their departments. And with each of these fire videos comes online critiques from keyboard incident commanders and others.

Ted Daniels has dealt with these very problems. But unlike the average firefighter helmet-cam video showing flames dancing over the camera operator’s head, Daniels’ clip features bullets whizzing by. These include some of the incoming ones that reach their target. That target was Pfc. Daniels who survived Taliban machine gun fire in Afghanistan last September to share his up close and personal view of the firefight with the world via YouTube. As of this writing the video (above) has 23,301,032 views.

While Daniels’ name surfaced as the video went viral the Army did not allow the former Maryland and Pennsylvania police officer to speak with reporters. That changed recently when The Washington Post’s Greg Jaffe talked with Daniels at Fort Carson in Colorado. You can hear Ted Daniels tell some of his story in the video above, along with Jaffe’s thoughts on the use of helmet-cams in war.

The story with Ted Daniels was published online on Friday and provides a very interesting look at how the military handles the issues surrounding helmet-cams. The article also shows how Daniels is dealing with these same issues and provides context to the dramatic pictures that were captured from atop Pfc. Ted Daniels’ head.

Read The Washington Post article by Greg Jaffe

Do you want to sell a rig? Click HERE to find out how with SellFireTrucks.com.

Okay, you’re the IC, what do you do? Is a drone eye in the sky coming to a fireground near you?

12 comments

Are you keeping up with STATter911.com on Facebook? You will find more fire & EMS news & videos by clicking here & choosing “like”. 

Previous STATter911.com coverage of drones at emergency scenes 

Read about safety & privacy issues & drones: here, here, here, here & here (this article has the best summary of the rules & issues)

This is an interesting video from camerajumper1 of one of those radio controlled tiny helicopters mounted with a camera doing a fly by at a recent strip mall fire in Los Angeles County, California.

People like Patrick Sherman and his partners of Roswell Flight Test Crew (click here for all of their videos) are among those pushing this technology as a tool for public safety. Most of us can imagine the very positive uses of an eye in the sky like this.  Just check out the video below where the Roswell folks attach a FLIR to the little chopper for a view of a wildland burn.

But what about the unannounced visitor over your fire scene? I have no idea if the IC at the strip mall fire knew there would be a flyover, but how would you react if you saw one with no warning? Would you see it as a threat? If it were a mass casualty incident or a crime scene would that impact your view of this and how you would handle the intrusion from above? Would it be any different than a TV news chopper flying at a much higher altitude?

I don’t have the answers to these questions and I am not sure anyone does at this point. But I can tell you this. If I was still in the TV news business I would be pushing my bosses to buy one. I can see many uses and not just for a breaking news event.

And, if I was a fire chief, I would be looking closely how I could use this technology as a tool in my arsenal.

Firehouse websites banned under new Baltimore social media policy. Critics also concerned about free speech issues.

26 comments

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit “like”)

According to the Baltimore Sun’s Kevin Rector a new policy covering social media and the Internet for Baltimore City firefighters bans wesbites like the one above, for Engine 8 and Truck 10. But, so far, that’s not the part of the policy that is proving controversial:

Under the policy, department personnel can be reprimanded for anything they write online about their jobs that doesn’t adhere to conduct rules, which require “good judgment” and “courtesy and respect to the public and to fellow employees.” The policy also restricts them from sharing information about fire scenes.

Fire Chief James S. Clack said the department crafted the policy to protect firefighters from getting into trouble for sharing sensitive information.

But union leaders called the policy too broad and said the department created it unilaterally after negotiations with union attorneys broke down last month. Social media and free-speech advocates balked at the scope of the policy and questioned its legality.

Bradley Shear, a Bethesda attorney who has advised state legislators in Annapolis on social media policy, said the new provisions are “troubling” and potentially unconstitutional.

“I think the policy is clearly suspect,” Shear said. “It’s over-broad, it’s retroactive, and I think they need to go back to the drawing board.”

Read entire article from The Baltimore Sun

Chief Clack told The Sun that while attorneys for the City threw in a lot of things, ”I’m going to be most interested in people when they’re working”,

The policy, like many these days, brings up as many questions as it answers. One thing that is banned is ”the real-time public disclosure of locations of deployed units, assets or personnel or any other real-time information from an incident scene.” Until earlier this year, IAFF Local 734 was using Baltimore City firefighters to provide such information to the public much as IAFF Local 36 in Washington, DC is doing currently. Could a fire department legally ban such union activity?

As you heard Curt Varone discuss with me in our IAFC webinar 10-days-ago, a social media policy is extremely important, but striking that right balance in today’s environment while this is all evolving, will prove to be challenging.

Cameras everywhere: Catching a firefighter’s frustration over slow water.

54 comments

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit “like”)

One of the hard parts about being a firefighter today is that whether it’s an EMS run, a trip to the store for dinner or showing up at a fire, someone is there to record it for posterity. If it isn’t a fellow firefighter with a helmet-cam it’s a neighbor or passerby with a cell phone camera. And if you don’t do your job perfectly each time, you can be sure the time you screw up will be caught on video and shared for everyone to see and then comment.

Such is the case with this recent car fire video posted by . This is something not likely to make TV news in most communities but is ready made for YouTube. In this case it catches a Phillipsburg, New Jersey firefighter’s frustration over standing there with an empty hose for longer than he would like. The firefighter yells to the pump operator, “Hey, what’s going on?”. He then says something else I can’t quite make out about the pump before putting down the nozzle and heading to see for himself what is causing the delay.

The camera also catches someone (not sure if it’s a civilian or firefighter) in shorts and no shirt helping to stretch out hose as the line is charged.

I can only imagine what the cameras would have caught if the digital age occurred back in the 70s when I was riding fire trucks. I don’t envy anyone who has to perform in front of the camera perfectly 24/7. Even when it was my job to be on camera every day, unless it was live, at least I was able to do re-takes.

Do you want to sell a rig? Click HERE to find out how with SellFireTrucks.com.

Coming to a fire near you? The drone with the eye in the sky.

14 comments

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit “like”)

I found this video of a Detroit house fire at Mound and Davison very interesting. It was uploaded by iTVDetroit / Aerial Photo & HD Video. Shooting fires does not seem to be the firm’s normal line of work but getting video from above is. From the company’s YouTube page:

We fly radio controlled vehicles to lift camera gear. Full sized aircraft can’t fly under 1000 ft , so RC is a great solution.

Sure is a lot cheaper than a news helicopter. Could you see someone using this to get around barricades where police, fire or EMS is trying to keep the news media or anyone with cameras from seeing things or shooting a scene?

Raw video & raw feelings: New video from the PA tanker fire that fueled many comments & the ire of the videographer.

44 comments

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit “like”)

Watch early video and read comments about this fire

This is apparently video shot a little earlier than the previous one we shared with you from Friday’s tanker crash and burn near Liberty Township, Pennsylvania (Tioga County). That video, posted here very early Sunday morning, and this video, were taken by Lonny Frost, who appears to shoot and report a fair amount of fire activity and other news in the region.

From remarks via Facebook on STATter911.com and with this video, Lonny Frost is not happy with some of the comments made by our KICs (keyboard incident commanders). Here’s what he wrote on Facebook:

I cannot believe people like all you putting down departments after viewing a 6 minute video clip that was taken some time after the tanker crash and fire.  How rude to think all you are better qualified than anyone from Tioga County.  Look into the facts of our county’s emergency workers, the hours, training and how many lives they have saved.  Ignorance is all I am reading on this STAT911.   A bunch of firemen sitting around bashing another before they even know what agency is already on scene and focusing on one firefighter, whom many of you believe is not doing his job correctly.  Again that is your opinion.  I dont mind comments or suggestions, but when did other firemen tear others apart?  I thought there was a botherhood in firefighting.  You are there to give advice, point out o ther possible solutions in future cases like the one you are negatively attacking.  That fireman was never in any dange, to himself or others.  Had anyone been in the “wrong” they would of been comfronted and removed. I have seen many of these companies save lives from situations others would not even enter.  How aweful to have such ruthless and invaluable comments.  Thanks for sharing your ignorance with your fellow self righteous critics.

For a while after this comment the video in question was made “private” on YouTube. As of this writing it’s back up.

With the posting of this latest video, Lonny Frost added these comments to the description on YouTube:

If you are going to write mean spirited comments about the volunteer fire departments, I will simply block you.  If you want to post suggestions or polite informative statements or comments please do so. As a correspondent reporter these clips are posted to let local people see a glimspe of what occured.  It is not for some of you to use to bash me or the firemen & women who volunteer to help those in our county. 

Lonny Frost is far from alone in criticizing the comments that are posted on STATter911.com or even criticizing me for providing this forum. There are a lot of people who feel this way. I understand why they feel the way they do. I even respect such opinions and don’t take any criticism of the comments on this site, the site itself or of me personally. I try to learn from it all. And, by the way, if you look at what Lonny Frost is saying, even if you think he is greatly misguided, it’s hard not to note that his heart is in the right place by standing up for firefighters (that’s more than some people believe about the publisher of this rag).

I have dealt with people who are offended by the comments section since almost day one of STATter911.com more than five-years-ago. Some of the complaints came from my closest and oldest friends in the fire service. I listened to what they all had to say and made the decision to keep the comments and censor as little as possible. I continue to stand by that decision and amazingly my friends still stand by me. Not that it doesn’t cause me great pain at times when I see personal bashing and comments that are more vindictive than constructive. To me, the forum works best when there is an adult discussion of issues and tactics with the egos left at the door (I know … I’m a dreamer).

In this particular incident in Tioga County, the comments came in rather fast and furious. The overall theme was one questioning what many believe are serious safety issues with this operation. While some said it more nicely than others, the comments almost all were about the same concerns.

As regular readers know I leave all of the commenting about firegound tactics and safety issues to others. But I do have some general observations about all of this.

First of all, I believe it would be nicer and more civilized if we could just tell people directly our concerns in a more private way. But the cameras everywhere, digital nature of life in the 2000s seems to have changed that dynamic forever. It isn’t just the fire service. In almost everything today we all have to deal with the instant analysis of our actions, whether it’s because of something we innocently wrote on Facebook or the video our neighbor took of us walking around our backyard in our underwear.

Taking that as a given, I’m left with this statement from Lonny Frost: “I thought there was a botherhood in firefighting.” Others (apparently firefighters) have said the same thing about some of the comments with the New Jersey ambulance fire video this weekend. This issue of “brotherhood” has long been brought up by those offended by the comments section.

The question I toss out to the crowd is this: Are you being more of a “brother” by not pointing out an important safety lapse in one of these videos so you won’t hurt that brother’s feelings or is brotherhood making your thoughts clear on an actions you see that could injure or kill your brother firefighters?

Elect Colorado’s Sheriff Justin Smith as the nation’s editor-in-chief. He’s the man who can protect us from all disturbing images.

34 comments

 Left to their own, the news media will continue to show images just like this one with no thought of the damage they are causing. Sheriff Justin Smith knows better. We need to take his plan to the nation.

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit “like”)

Read about new press controls in Colorado

STATter911.com previous column on Sheriff Smith

Larimer County Sheriff Justin Smith is my hero. He’s really showing those nasty news people who’s in charge. This is the guy we need on the national scene to finally get the out of control news media under the control of the government where it belongs.

After the arrogant TV news directors of Denver turned down Sheriff Smith’s request (see our earlier column) and kept showing burning and burned out homes, the man who was elected to be in charge got even (can you believe those insensitive, so called journalists actually showed things burning on the news?). According to an article by AP reporter Dan Elliott posted on Firefighter Nation, the sheriff has now issued brand new restrictions on the press covering wildfires in Northern Colorado. I know what you are saying and I’m with you. Can we even really trust a reporter to tell us what the sheriff is doing?

But if reporter Elliott is accurate (doubtful, considering how those people are), as part of Sheriff Smith’s continuing concern that a homeowner may have his or her privacy violated by seeing their destroyed home in the news before being officially notified, the sheriff is refusing to allow reporters and camera crews into areas they’ve typically had access to at previous wildfires in the region.

America needs Sheriff Smith. Here’s a guy who would make sure that all images of property destroyed by terrorist attack or other intentional act, accident or natural disaster have been properly cleared before being shown to the public. We’ve needed someone like Justin Smith for a long, long time.

With Justin Smith at the helm we would be spared live TV coverage of terrorist attacks or other unfolding disasters.

If he was in charge almost eleven years ago we wouldn’t have had to see any of the images from the attacks of 9-11 live on our TV screens. Sheriff Smith would have made sure access to the area by the reporters and photographers was restricted, and no images were seen until all property owners were officially notified by law enforcement.

When the next earthquake hits Southern California, Smith is the guy who can make certain no crumbling structures are viewed until after all home and building owners have been contacted.

When a jet goes off course and takes down an apartment complex, as it did in Virginia Beach, Virginia earlier this year, Sheriff Smith will see to it that every apartment dweller has heard the news from one of his deputies before even one image hits the airwaves.

The next time a single family home of lightweight construction catches fire and spreads to three or four neighboring homes and melts the siding off four or five others, Sheriff Smith will have the backs of the public. There will be no live TV chopper pictures of the destruction until each homeowner gets the word.

Everyone who lived in these apartments would have been notified first hand before the first image hit the screen if Justin Smith had his way. That’s why need him as our nation’s editor-in-chief.

This arrogance by the press, especially TV news, has gone on far too long. At the Museum of Radio and Television in New York, you can see for yourself, as I have, that as far back as a 1961 wildfire in Topanga Canyon in Los Angeles County, that KTLA-TV was showing live helicopter video from its chopper of homes burning. I can assure you no one notified those homeowners before the images were televised. And that’s probably because Justin Smith wasn’t born yet to protect us from this outrageous violation of our privacy and our freedoms.

I know if I were one of those resident in the path of a wildfire I wouldn’t want to know instantly my house burned down via some heartless TV news person doing a live report. No matter how many hours or days it took, it would be much better to be in the dark without such information, until, as the country’s Founding Fathers had intended, the home’s next of kin were properly notified by an elected official.

That’s all changed now. There’s a new sheriff in town. I urge both men who want to occupy The White House come January 21, 2013 to please consider naming Justin Smith as the nation’s first editor-in-chief. It’s time for the President to make sure the news people understand that a free press really means that the people who were elected by the citizens are free to make the rules. A man like Sheriff Smith, whose department also warned of unauthorized Facebook pages about the Colorado fires, could also be the guy to get this whole social media thing under control, with all of these citizens with cameras posting anything they want, whenever they want.

Better yet, this new national post should be a cabinet position with a name that everyone can clearly understand. How about Minister … I mean, Secretary of Information? It has a nice ring to it.

Early video: Firefighters rescue man from burning apartment building in Richland, Washington & some great citizen moments.

10 comments

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit “like”)

On Thursday evening firefighters in Richland, Washington pulled a man from a burning unit at the Casa Grande apartments on George Washington Way. The man is reported to be in critical condition, suffering from smoke inhalation. He was flown to a Seattle hospital for treatment. There is early raw video on the clips above and below. You will note the neighbor posing for pictures in front of the burning building in clip 1 and the other neighbor who has advice on how firefighters should put out the fire in clip 2.

Paul Horton, Tri-City Herald:

Firefighters encountered thick smoke as they entered the burning building to rescue the man trapped inside his first-floor apartment.

“They were in full smoke blackout trying to get the patient out,” said Richland Fire Chief Grant Baynes.

Richland Fire Marshal Kurt Hubele said the firefighters pulled the victim out through the front of the building. “They couldn’t even tell where they were until they got out,” he said.

Those ghouls are at it again. TV stations turn down Colorado sheriff’s request not to show burned or burning homes.

52 comments

Warning: The video above is not authorized and some may find it offensive.

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit “like”)

Did you hear the latest from those damn unpatriotic, liberal, Commie sympathizer, whining news media types? You won’t believe this one. You better take a Valium because when you read the details you’re going to want to suspend the First Amendment immediately, if not sooner.

Can you believe while covering this tragic wildfire ravaging parts of Colorado, the TV stations in Denver and beyond dared to show video and pictures of burned out and burning homes?

Those heartless and uncaring ghouls. Actual burning homes where people once lived! I’m serious. They should take away the license of any TV station that does that.

The worst part is the TV stations continued transmitting these pictures after being warned by the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office.

 One of those shocking KDVR-TV images the sheriff doesn’t want you to see. Some folks think the TV station should be sued.

Joanne Ostrow, a reporter (yes. one of those) from the Denver Post, wrote this about those unsavory news people:

At times the journalistic imperative to deliver news clashed with authorities’ efforts to control the flow of information.

On Monday, the Larimer County Sherriff’s Office issued a request to the media not to show photos of destroyed homes out of respect to homeowners.

Station managers acknowledged the sensitivity of the issue, but turned aside the plea on journalistic grounds.

“While we have deep respect for what Larimer County is asking, at the same time we are hearing from the same community that they want to know,” said Jeff Harris, News Director at 7News. The outpouring of response regarding the station’s extended coverage has been rewarding, he said.

“We certainly understand the emotional nature of those images,” said CBS4 News Director Tim Wieland. “In fact, many news events in our community can be difficult to watch for those who are directly affected. However, while we take care not to show inappropriate images, our job at the end of the day is to cover the news.”

When did the people of Colorado elect Mr. Wieland or Mr. Harris so they could make these decisions about what we should see? Last I looked, Sheriff Justin Smith was chosen by the voters to be in charge.

Come on folks. Freedom of the press does not mean you can just go around shooting pictures and video of news worthy events and put them all over the television and the Internet for just anyone to view. That certainly isn’t what our founding fathers had in mind.

I’m sure what the guys who started this great country were thinking is more in line with what a man named Charlie Brown wrote on the Facebook page of KDVR-TV (FOX31):

The Larimer County Sheriff Dept needs to sue the hell out of EVERY News Media Station, especially FOX31, due to the fact they they announced they did NOT want any homes being shown (burning or not) on TV due to the fact it would cause emotional distress for the owners of the homes in the fire zone. Mitt Romney should sue FOX31 because the only commercials they’ll show on their station (containing his name) are anti-Romney commercials. I’m even gonna request to be one of Romney’s, and the homeowners Legal Advisory Board. You screwed up FOX31, accept the consequences for your actions. 

At least it’s hearteneing to see there are some other patriots who posted and let it be known they agree with Mr. Brown.

To make matter worse, I have also learned there are now Facebook and Twitter accounts about the fires that were not okayed by the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office. WTF!

I quote from a press release yesterday at 4:00 PM by John Shulz, the public information officer for the Larimer County Sheriff’s Office:

There are no official Facebook or Twitter accounts for the High Park Fire. Any sites that exist are not authorized.

Seriously folks, we can’t be having this. It’s bad enough that the news media think they have the right to provide information to the public that isn’t approved, but now the average citizen is doing this through social media.

If we begin letting just any Joe Schmoe on Facebook, or some schmuck with a blog have their say whenever they want, without authorization, won’t that be the end of our free society? (BTW, someschmuckwithablog.com is one of those sites not authorized by any sheriff and it should be shut down immediately.)

Doesn’t this idea of citizen journalists with their posts, Tweets and blogs go against everything this country has stood for? When will it end?

A STATter911.com reader on free speech in & around the firehouse including social & not so social media. News items from FDNY, Jackson FD & South Bend FD.

4 comments

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit "like")

Help out the FDNY Rescue 2 Mayday Fund with MN8-Foxfire safety equipment

This week there have been a number of stories that relate to some of my favorite topics. These include free speech and social media. Here's a summary of the various news items and links to read more.

New York, New York

FDNY is dealing with a bit of an evolving controversy over an order last month from Commissioner Salvatore Cassano that banned “material presenting opinions or viewpoints” inside the firehouse. When the union complained, it prompted a revised order. The latest order still has the union riled. Here are some excerpts from an article by Al Baker in The New York Times:

Stephen J. Cassidy, the union president, consulted Ronald L. Kuby, a civil rights lawyer, and put the department on notice that he believed that the order, issued Dec. 29, was a violation of his members’ constitutional rights to free expression, even in the workplace.

He then did what he said was a first for his labor organization: He issued a memo on Monday directing roughly 8,000 firefighters simply to ignore the order from the fire commissioner, Salvatore J. Cassano.

On Wednesday, two days after Mr. Cassidy issued his memo, a Fire Department spokesman acknowledged that the order was too broadly worded, and said a new directive had been issued. The spokesman, Francis X. Gribbon, said that fire officials did not intend to keep firefighters from bringing opinion materials into the firehouse; the order was meant to prohibit the posting of opinions on any walls in the firehouses. Posting unofficial materials on bulletin boards has always been prohibited.

But the new language was of even greater concern to Mr. Cassidy, who said he would fight any effort to ban the posting of any written materials that are not official business on the walls of the city’s 350 firehouses.

Curt Varone has links to the series of orders and memos and gives us the legal perspective at FireLawBlog.com.

My non-legal mind reminds me of a similar story I covered in 1992 in the District of Columbia. Captain Larry Watts, with the help of IAFF Local 36 and the ACLU, was successful in court fighting disciplinary action after Watts posted a political cartoon in the firehouse that depicted well known athletes with some very public baggage and a firefighter. The caption read, "Kids! Find the positive role model". The cartoon was considered a problem by some because the athletes were black. Click here to read more about Watts v. Alfred.

Jackson, Mississippi

Twenty-six of 28 recruits for the Jackson Fire Department failed a State Certification exam. So, what does that story have to do with free speech or social media? Nice of you to ask. After the word leaked out on the Facebook page of a former assistant chief, and then reported on Tuesday in the Jackson press and by my friend Bill Schumm at Firegeezer, an even more interesting story surfaced on Wednesday. Here are details from ClarionLedger.com's Therese Apel:

Jackson Fire Chief Raymond McNulty has put his firefighters on notice not to post inaccurate information or comments harmful to the department on their social network sites.

They also cannot post photos of themselves in uniform or posing with city equipment.

McNulty confirmed in an email the number of recruits receiving their certification on the first try. He, however, would not grant an interview to The Clarion-Ledger.

When asked in writing about the memo he responded, "This memo was established to make our firefighters aware of the official rules and regulations of the City of Jackson."

City spokesman Chris Mims said the city does not have a social media policy yet.

McNulty says in his memo that firefighters shouldn't publicly discuss information that could be detrimental to JFD or its employees; shouldn't post content that is inconsistent with the duties and ethics of a firefighter, such as racist or sexist comments or rumors; and shouldn't use aliases.

In addition, McNulty advises his firefighters to clearly state that what they write is their own opinion and not that of the department.

Officers are allowed to comment on issues of public concern but not personal grievances.

Firefighters also are encouraged not to post information regarding off-duty activities that may bring their reputation or that of the department into question.

South Bend, Indiana

Captain Tony Schelske faces demotion and a suspension over cell phone video he took at a January 6 apartment fire and posted on YouTube. Schelske has the right to appeal after the Board of Public Safety upheld Chief Howard Buchanon's recommendation to bust Schelske back to first-class firefighter and give him a nine-day suspension.

FireCritic.com wrote about this earlier in the week.

Here as an excerpt from an article by Tom Moor at the South Bend Tribune:

“I made it clear to all captains that this is something you don’t do, and he did it,” Buchanon said. “He had a task to do, and he wasn’t doing it. Instead he was shooting video.”

Buchanon said the punishment has less to do with social media and more to do with the fact he was not doing his job while he was recording the fire.

“He was supposed to be working,” he said. “You’re in special assignment to be captain. We hold you to a higher standard.”

Do you want to sell a vehicle? Click HERE to find out how with SellFireTrucks.com.

Must see video: Detroit ambulance breaks down in the middle of New Year’s gunfire.

40 comments

Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit "like")

WJBK-TV's Charlie LeDuff is starting 2012 with an interesting bit of video from an EMS crew in Detroit. The Detroit Fire Department ambulance they were in broke down and they were stranded as the new year was being celebrated with gunfire. Sitting in the ambulance waiting, they pulled out their cameras and provided a little narration.

Do you want to sell a rig?Click HERE to find out how withSellFireTrucks.com

What gives? No outrage over ghoulish photographers shooting bodies. Has something changed in year since Connecticut trooper blasted cameraman?

70 comments

More from STATter911.com on cameras and firefighters, EMS and police

 Click here to follow STATter911.com on Facebook (hit "like") 

Since our first year of publishing STATter911.com we have had a variety of postings about cameras at the scene of emergency incidents. With it has been an ongoing conversation with you, our readers, about the ethics, rights and responsibilities of the press, public, victims, firefighters, EMTs, paramedics and police officers.

That conversation was bumped to a new level a year ago this month with the video above of a trooper with the Connecticut State Police screaming at a freelance news photographer shooting a fatal car fire from behind a guard rail on I-95. There were 165 comments, many of them from me, as we went back and forth over the actions of the trooper and the man behind the camera. (Click here and scroll down for the comments.)

Many of you, like the trooper, thought the cameraman was a ghoul and I was equally evil for defending him. I asked a lot of questions from those who took the trooper's side and blasted the videographer and me.

I tried to understand what was so offensive about the video. As you look at the raw footage above, the only thing you see is a burning car. As I have asked from the start, since when is shooting a car fire that shuts down a highway taboo?

In fact, maybe something is wrong with me (many of you have said as much), but the only thing I found offensive were the actions of the trooper. Not only was the trooper rude and insensitive to someone doing their job, he overstepped his bounds, acting as an editor or censor of what the public is allowed to see. Many of you made excuses for the trooper and I agreed it is just possible he was having a bad day. As for the videographer, despite all the name calling by our readers, no one pointed to any evidence that he didn't do his job professionally and treat the trooper with respect.

Taking in all of the comments and studying them closely, I came to my own conclusion of what was actually fueling the outrage. Despite what many wrote, this was not about being sensitive to the victim and her family. Though I do think that some of you sincerely believe in your hearts that was the case. I contended then and am even more convinced now (based on what I am about to show you) that most of those defending the trooper are willing to let a uniformed agent of our government decide what's appropriate for us to see, First Amendment be damned, because of a hatred of, or bias against, the press.

I have known for a long time how despised the news media is, but reading the reaction to this video actually made me fear a bit for the future of  our country. Even if I strongly disagreed with the actions of the photographer, I wouldn't want the police or any other government agency to be the decider of what we can see in a public place.

Besides the First Amendment issue, I also believe that there is a natural tendency for people to side with the authority figure. He's a cop, so he must be right. I get that, but again respectfully disagree that our government is always right.

So, why am I bringing this up now?

Take a look at the videos below. All have been posted on STATter911.com since October and were widely viewed, prompting many comments. Each one involves fire fatalities or critical injuries. Two videos show firefighters rescuing small children from burning homes. One clip is of a man being pulled from his burning home. Another has scenes of a man who later died collapsed outside a burning hotel. There is one showing firefighters attacking a fire with three bodies still inside. And there is also a video that shows efforts to recover a firefighter who died in the line of duty.

To me, each of these videos is a hell of a lot more graphic than what was shown in the Connecticut car fire video. All of the videos, except two, show victims in cardiac or respiratory arrest being treated by fire and EMS.

Despite the many comments posted with each of the videos, there is no one complaining that these photographers, like the one in Connecticut, are ghouls. We have no one screaming about victims' rights or HIPAA violations. And no one is telling me what a bad man I am for running these videos. Why is that? How can that be?

How can shooting a car fire bring such outrage while showing actual fire victims or being up close and personal at a fatal fire not even bring a squeak?

I believe the answer is pretty simple. In these videos there was no authority figure on the scene, like the police officer in Connecticut, overstepping his or her bounds and fueling the fire and passion against the photographers.

What I attempt to do with every conflict I see or am involved in, is to boil down what it's really about. Despite all of the claims last year of protecting the victim (which I believe those in public safety can do without trampling on our freedoms), I am left with the conclusion that, without someone yelling at a photographer, or reminding us of our hatred of the press, we generally just sit back and watch these videos without a great deal of disgust, anger and outrage. Am I wrong?

December 10, 2011: Two children rescued in Lake Station, Indiana. Mother died.

December 9, 2011: Two children rescued in Wilmington, Delaware.

October 9, 2011: Fatal hotel fire in Whitehall, Pennsylvania.

November 30, 2011: Man rescued from home in Whitehall, Pennsylvania.

December 12, 2011: Triple fatal fire in Stevens, Pennsylvania.

December 8, 2011: Firefighter Jon Davies killed in Worcester, Massachusetts fire.

Cameras everywhere: Three people capture house lighting off in Calgary.

3 comments

I show my age when I make too much of this, but I still sometimes shake my head in amazement over the impact of the digital video revolution. This is an example of one of those moments. Searching for fire video for the blog this afternoon, I came across the one immediately below showing a distant shot of a vacant house fire yesterday in Downtown Calgary. The video quality is not that great but what caught my eye was the flashover that occurs at 1:10 in the clip.

As I was thinking about whether it showrf enough to be of interest to anyone, I continued searching for something else to post. That's when I came across the video above. It was shot from right in front of a burning home. This one didn't say the city, but to my surprise this house also suddenly erupted in flames at the :35 point (well, not a complete surprise, even from this amateur's reading of the smoke).

For just a moment I thought how odd it was, even in our digital age, to see two somewhat violent flashovers on video in one day. But the thought only lasted a couple of seconds before it dawned on the editor of this rag that they might be the same house fire. Reading further into the descriptions I noticed they both occurred on 14th Avenue. Even an idiot like me is able to occasionally come up with the answer four, or something close to it, when asked to add two and two.

And then there is the video at the bottom. Yes, a third view of the same event. Click here for yet another angle and details about the fire.

I spent a career chasing fire engines in mostly unsuccessful efforts to capture dramatic video like this. Today, TV news operations just have to wait for the citizens to bring it to them. And often there are a variety of videos to choose from.

In the 1970s Gil Scott-Heron told us the revolution will be televised. He just didn't explain the citizens would be doing it and it would be a multi-camera shoot. 

 

Video: Fire buff flash mob gets corralled by Detroit cops.

17 comments

David Psenechnuk at DMP Productions/FireBuffVideo.com made me laugh with this undated video from Detroit he titled "How many fire buffs can you fit on a fire scene?".

Could this fire buff convergence also be referred to as a flash mob? And were fire buffs well ahead of their time and are actually some of the original flash mobsters?

Wikipedia describes a flash mob as "a group of people who assemble suddenly in a public place, perform an unusual and sometimes seemingly pointless act for a brief time, then disperse". 

Of course "pointless" is in the eye of the beholder. We don't see the videos fire buffs provide STATter911.com and other fire service media as pointless, but clearly some in the Detroit Police Department do. 

Is Milwaukee, Wisconsin another community where the First Amendment is just an option? Officers cite safety & privacy as reason to remove TV cameraman from non-secure area at house fire. Watch raw video of the arrest.

56 comments

 

Previous coverage of cameras at emergency scenes

Read entire opinion from U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Above is the raw video from the camera of WITI-TV photojournalist Clint Fillinger just prior to his arrest Sunday nigh accused of resisting a Milwaukee police officer and obstructing the officer in his duties at the scene of a house fire. On the video, the police sergeant can be heard saying that Fillinger was being moved back for "his safety". At the same time the safety of the members of the public, who like Fillinger, were standing outside the secure area, behind the police yellow tape, is apparently not so important.

The officer was so concerned about the safety of this one man with the camera that he knocked the 68-year-old cameraman to the ground as Fillinger was being shepherded to the end of the block. Fillinger told a reporter for his station that he touched the officer while putting up his hands in a defensive move as the officer came at him while the photographer was walking backwards. I will let you be the judge if the officer's reaction was appropriate. I say this knowing there will be plenty out there who will focus on the fact Fillinger touched the sergeant and that's all anyone needs to know.

The other police officer on the video, also identified as a sergeant, told Fillinger we need you to move back "for their privacy".

 

Now, let's bring in Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn who was asked by a reporter from WITI-TV to comment on this confrontation. The chief pointed out, since this was the same as a citizen complaint he was limited in what he could say to those facts that everyone has seen on TV. From apparently watching that video the chief made the point, "If the cameraman had simply complied with the instructions to back off from a working fire none of this hullabaloo would be taking place".

But Chief Flynn, couldn't it also be said at this point from just watching the video, if the police officer hadn't targeted an individual for removal from a non-secure area because the person was carrying a camera none of this hullabaloo would be taking place?

 

The chief did what many will think is an admirable thing by defending his people, taking the side of the sergeant over the cameraman based on the video that's in the public. But isn't Chief Flynn also sworn to defend the Constitution of the United States?

In the defense of the Constitution shouldn't the chief be bringing up some other points and questions that seem reasonable to bring up from just looking at and listening to this video? Things like was that a lawful order of the police officer based on the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals? Why was it so important to aggressively remove this one person from the scene and not anyone else? Just what privacy expectation is there on a public street in Milwaukee? What safety concern was there that only the photographer needed to be sent to the end of the block?

Yes, it's great to support your people chief and to reserve judgment until the investigation is complete. But wouldn't it be nice if you or some other police chief got up there during one of these situations and said something like this?

"I want to make it clear that the job of the police department is to defend the Constitution of the United States. This includes the First Amendment. In reviewing this incident I want to make sure that the rights of this individual carrying a camera were not violated and at the same time try to determine if this order from my officer is consistent with our rules, regulations and procedures and the laws of this state and country. When this investigation is complete I hope to know these answers. In the meantime I can assure you that my officers are aware that it is their duty not to interfere with anyone who is lawfully shooting pictures."

So, tell me Chief Flynn, would it make you or your department look bad if you answered the questions about this incident in that manner? Is that not a more even handed way to reply to something as important as this? Is it considered a sign of weakness for the police to make a clear statement about supporting the First Amendment? Would you be considered any less of a police chief in front of the public or your officers if you answered this way?

 

Public information in your Nation’s Capital: Encryption of police communications, fire department Twitter feed goes dark, cameras seized by police. What does it all mean? A guest column by Gerald Baron.

26 comments

For those interested in how fire departments and other public agencies communicate with the press and the public there was a fascinating exchange (above) at yesterday's regularly scheduled press briefing by District of Columbia Mayor Vincent Gray. The press was in somewhat open rebellion about a couple of policies of the DC government that seem to contradict Mayor Gray's pledge of an open and transparent administration.

It started with a question by WJLA-TV reporter Suzanne Kennedy about two recent moves by city officials. One was the encryption of all radio communications for the Metropolitan Police Department (DC Police) and the other, the halting of a very active and popular Twitter feed by the DC Fire & EMS Department that alerted the press and the public to fires, accidents, shootings and other emergencies that fire and ems crews responded to.

The Twitter account had almost 10,000 followers and had provided more than 11,000 Tweets. It had become a primary alerting source for the news media and private citizens. The last Tweet was on August 30. Shortly after the Tweets stopped the police department began encrypting its radio traffic with the justification that smart phone apps allow criminals to listen in on the department's communications much in the way radio scanners have done for decades.

So, the news media and the public lost two important sources that helped them provide oversight of city officials and operations.

Let's make it clear that the best we can tell these both are legal and lawful policies of the District of Columbia government. It is within the rights of city officials to take these actions. There is no law that requires them to maintain a Twitter account or keep their radio communications open. But is this a smart route to go if you want to have transparent and open government in the 21st Century?

There are some things you should read as you ponder this. Here are accounts of the press conference from The Washington Post, The Washington Times and  DCist.com.

Then there is the reaction, not just from the press, but by the public, via Twitter, over the loss of Tweets from @dcfireems and the comments made by the DC Fire & EMS Department's Director of Communications Lon Walls (click here and scroll down). Many blasted Walls for believing that "social media is for parties". In the Washington Times and DCist.com articles you will see Walls is not a fan of Twitter.

Also, take the time to read the column below posted yesterday by Gerald Baron on his blog Crisis Comm for the site Emergency Management. Gerald is a respected leader in the world of crisis communications who wrote the book I often quote, Now is Too Late. The column also mentions something we have covered numerous times on STATter911.com. That is the interference by public safety officials of picture taking by the public and press. We previously posted two such incidents involving DC Police officers that occurred this year (I have added the video below of those stories).

Here's my brief message on this to the administration of Mayor Gray and anyone else who has the responsibility of communicating with the public for routine every day events and in times of crisis. That little thing in everyone's hands that always seems to be a part of their body is how most people get their news these days. It's also how they share news with others, whether it's taking pictures with the camera that is a part of it or using the applications on it like Twitter and Facebook. Those people who are constantly holding and operating these devices are the people you serve and the people who pay your salaries. They want and expect to know what's going on almost instantly via that device. The city has the opportunity to be a valued, trusted and instant source of information that their citizens can rely on every day and in times of major emergencies. And a source that reaches directly to the public without first having to go through the news media. Don't deride it, don't confiscate it, don't ignore it. Instead, embrace it and the reality of how people now communicate.

But enough from me. Here are some words on this subject from a real expert::

DC Police and Fire Move Public Communication Back Toward the Dark Ages

by Gerald Baron

This story sort of makes me wonder if DC Mayor Vincent Gray has his communication staff learning cuneiform writing. First this blog post arrived concerning the Mayor's press conference in which he announced that the DC Police would be using encrypted radio, and that the Fire and EMS Service would be in future "filtering" their Twitter feeds. HuffPost reported on the clamp down of communication in this article.

It's really quite bizarre. Every after action report of any consequence of major events highlights the need for interoperable communication and by encrypting all radio messages they certainly have sent interoperability concerns into the closet. Maybe there is sufficient safety justification, I hope so, because if this trend continues the history of major event management shows that lives will be lost because of interoperability issues.

But my primary concern is shutting down Twitter. @dcfireems has been a very popular means of communicating in DC about emergency events. With nearly 10,000 followers it is very clear that it has become the primary means used by DC media to keep the public informed, but equally important is the fact that the public itself is kept informed through those tweets.

In talking with a source close to these matters in DC, it appears that the encrypted radio decision and putting the brakes on Twitter are related and both coming from DC Police. As DC Police moved toward keeping their communication under wraps, it was troubling them that Fire EMS service was tweeting openly about things–some of which involved police. So they felt they couldn't keep the wraps on their communication and allow a sister agency to keep talking. This move by DC Police is in addition to their apparent policy of confiscating the phones of citizen journalists documenting arrests for the apparent purpose of capturing evidence. This is deeply troubling.

Needless to say, those following the Twitter account are not happy–both reporters and the public. The Twitter conversation gives an indication of their thoughts on this.

However, the announcement about this compounded the problem by being less than transparent and honest. The last tweet from Fire/EMS as I understand it was August 31. Initially it was explained that this was because the tweeter, Pete Piringer, had gone on vacation. Then in the press conference it was explained that it was shut down because it had imperiled the operation of another (apparently federal) agency. The real explanation, provided by my source, was only hinted at–that police want to keep the wraps on things.

What absolutely amazes and appalls me coming from communicators in our nation's capital are comments like these:

"After the press conference, Lon Walls, the department's communication director and a former journalist himself, said that accuracy was vital. "I'd rather be slow and right than fast and wrong," he said.

"Social media is for parties. We ain't givin' parties," he added, arguing that safety and sensitive issues had to be considered before tweeting out information on emergencies."

Social media is for parties? I'd rather be slow? Break out the clay tablets, boys and girls. No doubt there are operational concerns with tweeting, no doubt policies and controls need to apply, no doubt mistakes can easily be made with serious consequences. But because cars cause accidents doesn't mean we go back to horses and buggies. I certainly hope DC gets their inter-agency disagreements under control and some leadership is shown about today's realities of public communication.

Above is a June 19 story about a camera confiscated by DC Police after a citizen took pictures of an arrest on a public street.

Above is a story about a July 3 incident where DC Police confronted a man taking pictures of a traffic stop.

EMS official grabs WNBC-TV camera. Apparently they don’t read U.S. Court of Appeals decisions in Suffolk County, New York.

65 comments

Read more at Firegeezer.com

More details from the Reporters Commitee for Freedom of the Press

Read entire opinion from U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Read FireLawBlog.com's Curt Varone's view

Previous coverage of cameras & first responders

It took only a week after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed the right of the citizenry to shoot video of public officials working in public places for someone to decide that the law of the land doesn't apply in their jurisdiction. Interestingly, that jurisdiction is Suffolk County, New York, where a little more than a month earlier a veteran police sergeant decided he was editor in chief after chasing a freelance videographer from a crime scene and later arresting him for daring to point a camera in the direction of cops doing their jobs. Did I miss the footnote to the First Amendment that says "except on Long Island"?

Even more interesting is that the confrontation above was shot by Phil Datz (and posted on September 3), the same cameraman who the good sergeant arrested on July 29 (see the video below).

Mike Ward, AKA FossilMedic, found and posted this one at Firegeezer and has his own comments about this one. Here are mine.

Mike and others report it is a Suffolk County EMS officer who grabbed the camera at a Haz-Mat scene in Bohemia, New York. Now, I know a lot of people will look at this one and say the cameraman, from WNBC-TV, is too close. The information with this video and posted elsewhere indicates no police or fire line was established until after this incident occurred.

Whether he is too close or, as the official says in the video, "I told you to stop", is really meaningless here. An EMS official grabbing a camera like that makes him and his agency look foolish and opens the organization up for all kinds of issues. You rarely win pulling a stunt like this.

Yes, for all you press haters, it looks good giving the nasty media what those scums deserve. But where in the job description does it say someone in fire or EMS has the right to decide what can be photographed or the right to grab a person or a camera to enforce their orders?

My advice is unless someone's life or safety is in imminent danger you might want to leave the enforcement to police. Though in Suffolk County we have discovered that some police officers have a lot to learn about this same issue.

The First Amendment lives. U.S. Court of Appeals in Boston says there is nothing illegal about shooting video of police doing their jobs.

29 comments

Appeals Court opinion doesn't give a lot of support to the belief of the EMS crew member in this July 22, 2011 video from Coudersport, Pennsylvania that she can decide who takes her picture in a public place.

Read entire opinion from U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

Previous coverage of cameras & first responders

Watch ACLU video that includes cell phone video that lead to arrest

We have written often about confrontations between first responders and the people who take pictures of them doing their jobs. The videos on this page are two of the most recent ones we have posted. The discussion has been quite animated, with some in our comments section believing that police, fire and EMS have a say in what the press and private citizens can and can't shoot in a public place.

I have often expressed my bias in this conversation as a strong supporter of the First Amendment. In an important ruling that addresses new technology and the reality that cameras are everywhere, I am very happy to report the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit has the same view I do.

The case involves Simon Glik who was arrested in 2007 after using his cell phone to record an arrest by police on Boston Common where Glik thought excessive force was being used.

Police claimed Glik was violating Massachusetts law prohibiting audio recording without the consent of the person being recorded.

Here's an excerpt from an article by Robin Harris at zd.net.com:

Glik was charged with wiretapping, disturbing the peace and aiding the escape of a prisoner. The last was so silly the state dismissed the charge.

The Boston Municipal Court found Glik not guilty of the other charges, noting the audio recording was not secret and carried out in plain view. Glik complained to the police, but they refused to investigate, so he filed a civil rights suit for violation of his 1st and 4th Amendment rights.

Last Friday the court issued a ruling agreeing with Simon Glik that his rights were violated.

The opinion touches on many of the issues we have discussed in this forum about just who the press is these days and what rights the public has in using their cameras. Here is some of the operative language from the ruling.

The First Amendment issue here is, as the parties frame it, fairly narrow: is there a constitutionally protected right to videotape police carrying out their duties in public? Basic First Amendment principles, along with case law from this and other circuits, answer that question unambiguously in the affirmative. It is firmly established that the First Amendment’s aegis extends further than the text’s proscription on laws “abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press,” and encompasses a range of conduct related to the gathering and dissemination of information. As the Supreme Court has observed, “the First Amendment goes beyond protection of the press and the self-expression of individuals to prohibit government from limiting the stock of information from which members of the public may draw.”

Moreover, changes in technology and society have made the lines between private citizen and journalist exceedingly difficult to draw. The proliferation of electronic devices with video-recording capability means that many of our images of current events come from bystanders with a ready cell phone or digital camera rather than a traditional film crew, and news stories are now just as likely to be broken by a blogger at her computer as a reporter at a major newspaper. Such developments make clear why the news-gathering protections of the First Amendment cannot turn on professional credentials or status.

The Suffolk County (NY) Police sergeant in this July 29, 2011 incident isn't likely to find a lot in this opinion that gives him a legal right to become news editor and decide when it is okay for the public and the press to use their cameras.

Media relations video: EMS crew member tells reporter where to go at fire scene in Coudersport, Pennsylvania.

106 comments

STATTer911.com articles on cameras & first responders

Read article from CoudyNews.com

Watch what happens when Tim Hallman of CoudyNews.com arrives to take video of a house fire in Coudersport, Pennsylvania on July 22. According to Hallman, the woman putting his hands on him and directing Hallman far away from the fire scene (behind the public and other news people, according to Hallman) is a member of a local EMS crew.

So what is the justification for actions like this by a first responder? Can you make a case that this is an issue of safety or interfering with the work of public safety at the scene of an emergency? Reading the comments at CoudyNews.com there are some trying to claim that.

How many of you really believe that and see evidence of that in the video?

This is a situation I dealt with numerous times in my career where someone in police, fire or EMS just couldn't deal with cameras on the scene. This isn't that much different than the recent Suffolk County, New York video where the cop chased a videographer to an area behind the public and then arrested him (the police commissioner requested that the charges be dropped).

Handling the news media and even the public this way is not good policy for any public safety agency. The legality is questionable (I am not a lawyer and leave that to an expert like Curt Varone) and the image you present to the public is a pretty poor one (though it will make some press bashers happy).

You need to make sure that your department has consistent policies and procedures for dealing with cameras and providing safety at the scene for the press and public that recognize the rights we are provided in this country. When those decisions are left to the whim and bias of individual first responders we all lose. 

Must see video: It ain’t all bad out there Statter. Look how this police officer handles one man armed with a camera & a gun! Plus, charges to be dropped against man with camera in Suffolk County, New York & internal investigation back after Las Vegas citizen photographer beaten.

29 comments

Sunday's rant by Dave over police vs. photographer confrontations

Previous coverage & discussion of cameras at incident scenes can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, herehere, here & here

This may be a very disappointing "must see video" for many of you. No real action and it isn't a fire. But it is exactly what I needed to get me out of my funk after viewing the series of videos I posted Sunday of police officers around the country who have a funny interpretation of protecting and defending the Constitution.

The video posted to YouTube last November stars Badge #1093 of the Oceanside (CA) Police Department, Cpl. Matthew J. Lyons. I urge all of you to watch how Cpl. Lyons reacts to a man carrying a camera who records the entire interaction with the officer. Besides the camera in his left hand, the man, who only gives his name as Jeremy, has a gun on his side.

Listen to Cpl. Lyons' words and watch his actions. The officer is also a 22-year veteran of the U.S. Marines. He knows and respects Jeremy's right to not only carry an unconcealed, unloaded weapon, but to also carry and use a camera that is not concealed.

Now, compare this to what you saw from the Suffolk County (NY) Police Department sergeant (below) who arrested a credentialed news photographer on Friday. Or the officers you see in the other videos I posted on Sunday. If you were a police chief or commanding a squad of officers, would you want on your team cops who only uphold the part of the Constitution that fits their purposes or those who believe in the entire document?

Jeremy, who apparently gets stopped quite a bit with the gun on his belt walking around Oceanside, has recorded other transactions with police officers. They are posted on this YouTube channel. While the other cops aren't quite as charismatic as Cpl. Lyons, the best I can see tell is none of Oceanside's officers seems to get bent out of shape because a citizen has a camera in their face. My guess is that comes from good training.  

Corporal Lyons you are my hero. You not only served our country as a Marine, you serve the citizens of Oceanside by keeping them safe and safeguarding their rights. Thank you Doug Walton for finding this one and sending it our way.

As for the Suffolk County Police Department incident, the charges against the photographer are going to be dropped and it appears training is coming their way (maybe they can fly in Cpl. Lyons as a guest lecturer). Here's the latest in an excerpt from an article by Timothy Bolger at LongIslandPress.com

Commissioner Richard Dormer said in a statement Monday that there is an internal review of the incident and all officers will undergo media relations refresher training. The announcement came about an hour after the Press Club of Long Island, a local trade group, called for the charges to be dropped.

“I am working with the Suffolk County District Attorney to have the arrest nullified,” Dormer said. “The police department believes in keeping an open line of communication with the media and we will be reviewing the department’s policy concerning involvement with the news media.”

And in Las Vegas, an internal review of previous case we told you about found that Officer Derek Colling violated several department policies, including using excessive force, when he subdued and arrested a man who was taking video from his own driveway of police responding to a burglary call. Here's the latest story and here is our previous coverage. The video from that incident is below.

What country is this? A look at some recent incidents where the police become news editors & decide what is & isn’t okay for us to see.

56 comments

Previous coverage & discussion of cameras at incident scenes can be found here, here, here, here, here, here, here, herehere, here & here

The video above was posted to YouTube about an incident that occurred on Friday in Suffolk County, New York. It came with the following description:

This was the end of a police chase and the Sgt. doesn't want video coverage from a credentialed member of the press. The photog asks how far to move back but the sgt. says no you can't shoot it at all. Notice the road is open to traffic, there are people without a camera that are standing there and even some kids walk straight through the scene. The photog moves a block away and shoots from the next street over and that's when he's arrested and charged with Obstruction of Governmental Administration….how can you obstruct from a block away.

LongIslandPress.com says the man behind the camera is Phil Datz, who works for Stringer News Service in New York:

Suffolk County police confirmed that Datz was arrested and said he was charged with obstruction of governmental administration. He was taken to the Fifth Precinct stationhouse in Patchogue where he was fingerprinted and had a mugshot taken. He was later released.

“We are reviewing the circumstances surrounding the arrest” of Datz, a police spokesman said. Datz can be heard referring to the cop as a “Sergeant” but the name and rank of the arresting officer was not released.

Ryan said a police officer apologized to him at the precinct, but told him nothing could be done about the arrest because Datz had already been booked.

From experience in writing about this topic, I am sure there are some who will laugh and say the only mistake the police officer made is he didn't destroy the camera and video. I find humor in lots of things many others find inappropriate. But this doesn't make me laugh. To me, it is extremely chilling and very sad.

As many of you who read this electronic rag know, I am very biased when it comes to this issue. I make no apologies for being hard-core pro-First Amendment. And I am kind of fond of that whole Constitution thing.

I know some who disagree with my position will start telling me how awful the news media is (and some in the news media are awful, as recently shown by the News Corp. debacle which now has possible connections to 9-11 victims). And others will tell me I don't know what's not on this video that the terrible man with the camera did. So, let me be clear I am only basing my opinion on what I see in this raw video.

What the police officer had to say on the video and the actions he took are plenty enough for me to once again point out that leaving decisions of what is and isn't okay for the public to see in the hands of uniformed and armed agents of our government is quite a scary scenario for the future of our country. And those who think these actions by police are just fine and call yourselves supporters and protectors of our way of life really need to study a little history and look closely at the countries where government does control the news media. This is my preemptive strike telling you to stop making excuses for people in uniform who are only selectively supporting the Constitution they are sworn to protect.

Below, are some other stories in recent months that help fuel my worries. Each has its own set of circumstances. I am sure many of you who feel differently than I do can find excuses for the actions of the police that will support your own interpretation of our rights. But I have to tell you it's not how they taught it to me in school.

Above is a video from the May 12 arrest of Emily Good in Rochester, New York. This case has received national attention. Good, who is described in news reports as an activist, shot the video of police activity while standing on her front lawn. The District Attorney quickly dropped charges against Good. The union representing the police has a different view on this and believes the safety of officers is what's at stake here. They also say that officers involved in Good's arrest have been threatened (read and watch that story).

James Sheppard, Rochester's police chief, ordered investigations of this incident and one where police ticketed cars belonging to supporters of Good gathered at a meeting (video here). Chief Sheppard told the Democrat and Chronicle on July 5 that he is waiting for results of the investigations before determining if there was any misconduct by Officer Mario Masic, who arrested Good. Here's more of the chief's comments::

He said he thought the video showed that Masic acted professionally, and said the stop that precipitated Good's arrest — the activity partly filmed by Good — was an example of "proactive" policing.

Police said there were suspected gang members in the car. No one was arrested from the vehicle.

Sheppard said the incident does show the need to remind police officers that they shouldn't be concerned if someone videotapes them without interference.

Chief Sheppard is exactly right. A lot of this is about training. Not just for police, but for all first responders who now have to do their jobs with cameras shooting them from all angles. As I have mentioned before, some EMS providers are using cameras during training to make sure when they hit the streets they can do their jobs competently despite someone taking pictures. I have watched law enforcement train for decades on how to ignore taunts and other actions of protesters during large demonstrations. Wouldn't it be smart to the same with cameras?

A story by Jack Minor in Colorado's Greeley Gazette looks at the attempt by some since 9-11 to declare photography illegal. It has some interesting comments by Greeley Police Chief Jerry Garner who confirms that his city does not have any law prohibiting taping of police officers (by the way, the Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Marine Corps, the U.S. Secret Service, the Federal Protective Service, the FBI, the U.S. Capitol Police and most every other law enforcement agencies in the Washington, DC area confirmed the same for me when I was a TV reporter working on a number of stories about this post 9-11 issue) :

Garner said he was amazed at how a lawful act such as videotaping could be considered illegal. Garner went on to say that he tells young officers to, "Do your job so that if you were being taped and the tape was shown to your loved ones you would never be ashamed." 

Great words to live by for all of us in the digital video age.

Above is the story of a lawsuit filed by the American Civil Liberties Union on behalf of a man taking pictures of an arrest in your Nation's Capital on July 3 (what is it everyone was celebrating the next day?). Click here to read more about this incident in Georgetown.

When you look at the story above from June 19, I think you will understand why the DC police officer in the July 3 Georgetown incident believes citizens have no right to go about their business unmolested when they are taking pictures of cops in action on a public street. Metropolitan Police Department Assistant Chief Diane Groomes explains why it is okay for officers to confiscate your camera when you shoot an arrest scene. It leaves you wondering if the department will start taking the cameras of all news photographers who show up where people are being cuffed and stuffed. If not, what's the difference? And who is the press these days anyway? (For the record, as puzzled as I am about her comments, I have a great deal of respect for Chief Groomes and her treatment of the press based on my experience as a reporter in Washington.)

The video above is also from your Nation's Capital. This time the scene is not on a public street, but inside a public meeting of the DC Taxicab Commission. The officers are with the United States Park Police. In fact, the meeting is at a U.S. Park Police facility. Is it only me who finds it ironic that the people who seem the most outraged by the arrest of the reporter are taxi drivers who are immigrants from countries where the press and the citizenry don't have the freedoms that this country guarantees? Reporter Tom Sherwood wrote about this June 22 case here and has more to say here.

Now, before any of you make decisions about what my politics are are or start believing I don't support law enforcement or possibly mom, apple pie and the flag, watch the interview below with the reporter who took the video above. He was also arrested by U.S. Park Police. Notice who is doing the interview and completely supports the reporter's actions and thinks police were wrong. Judge Andrew P. Napolitano is the senior judicial analyst for the Fox News Channel. He also hosts the show Freedom Watch on the Fox Business Network where this interview took place.

Okay, I'm through. Have at me.

Pre-arrival video: Chip store burns at UK’s Brighton Seafront. Lots of cameras on the scene. Stealing an idea from EMS on dealing with them.

9 comments

Previous coverage & discussion of cameras at incident scenes can be found here, here, here, here, here, herehere, here & here

Fire broke out Thursday afternoon at Beach Break Fish and Chip in the King’s Road Arches at Great Britain's Brighton Seafront. There were lots of cameras rolling before and after firefighters arrived. Here are some details from The Argus:

Eight fire engines have been called to the scene among fears that the fire could spread to neighbouring shops and because there are fears that there maybe people trapped inside.

The fire was put out around two hours later and three people were led to safety from the blaze.

We have had some discussions of late about cameras at emergency scenes. One of the issues was over law enforcement not wanting a news photographer to take pictures of the cops doing their jobs out in the open on a public street. Watch the first video on this page and count how many cameras are out. In the still frame above there are at least six people taking pictures or videos. There are plenty more on all sides of this incident.

The genie has long been out of the bottle. It's a fact of life. Maybe time is better spent teaching fire, EMS and police how to do their jobs professionally and efficiently while being photographed.  A few months back I read a column by Dr. James Augustine in EMS World about the successful outcome in a tricky, life-threatening medical case that happened to be caught in video from start to finish by a bystanders cell phone camera. Here's what Dr. Augustine wrote in reference to the camera on the scene:

There are cases where EMTs must provide immediate lifesaving actions with little time for explanation to the patient or significant others. There are also incidents that occur in front of audiences of intensely impacted bystanders who in these days record the action on cameras and cell phones.

It is also important that the EMT be prepared to function in front of a camera, and not develop stage fright at a critical time. Some agencies now film providers in training doing critical EMS evolutions, so the members are aware of what an interaction looks like on film. In all cases, timely patient care is the critical priority.

Seems like a real smart way to deal with this issue and make sure EMTs and paramedics are comfortable and not distracted when bystanders or the press starts shooting. And it probably will work much better and result in fewer first responders having to make up laws that just don't exist.

I have witnessed police civil disturbance training where they teach officers to ignore extremely nasty taunts and other provocation by demonstrators. Couldn't the same thing be done with cameras?

Is this a good law that’s a victim of bad reporting, fueled by a lawmaker’s hyberbole? Or is this an attack on the First Amendment by the Illinois house?

7 comments

Would the Illinois bill prohibit pictures like this one from Maryland's Beltway? Maybe or maybe not.

Previous coverage & discusson of cameras at incident scenes can be found here, here, here, herehere, here & here

This morning two STATter911.com readers sent me articles from Illinois that, on the surface, look like overkill or a politician's cover for a different agenda. Reading the news coverage it gives you the impression that Rep. Tom Holbrook, a Democrat from Belleville, was able to get a bill past an Illinois House committee that would ban most picture taking within 500 feet of an accident scene. 

According to the news coverage, Holbrook believes amateur photographers are just getting in the way of emergency personnel. The law maker described it this way to WBBM Radio in Chicago, “Putting your cell phone over the firemen’s shoulders as he’s using the jaws of life, maybe to get your grandmother of the front seat of her car while she’s bleeding.”

There is no doubt that there are a large number of cameras at emergency scenes these days carried by both the first responders and the public. And members of each group have done stupid things with those cameras. I pointed one out recently where a driver rode past a bunch of police cars on the shoulder of the road and under a burning overpass on the Capital Beltway in Maryland while his passenger shot video of the truck engulfed in flames that was the source of the fire. Stupid, stupid stuff.

My first reaction was this law would fight stupidity with stupidity. Lawmakers willing to solve a problem that has many other remedies by launching an assault on the First Amendment (and Mr. Holbrook I don't think the public is putting cameras on the shoulders of firefighters … yet). The Supreme Court just ruled 8 to 1 on Wednesday that those vicious idiots from the Westboro Baptist Church have the right to protest at military funerals (as much as it hurts, the Supreme Court is right), yet the Illinois lawmakers want to ban taking pictures of a scene that is in public view. Something isn't right here.

But wait, that may not be the case and if what I am finding online about this bill is correct, this may make perfect sense.

(Hold on here. Has Dave lost his mind? The man who always defends the rights of those scumbag news photographers thinks it's okay to ban picture taking? Read on folks.)

Looking at the Illinois General Assembly website I find one bill by Tom Holbrook that somewhat fits this description. It is titled "VEH CD-ACCIDENTS:NO CELL PHNES". Here's the summary:

Amends the Illinois Vehicle Code. Provides that no person may use a wireless telephone while operating a motor vehicle within 500 feet of an emergency scene except for specified purposes. Adds digital photographs and video to the definition of "electronic message" in provisions prohibiting the use of electronic communication devices while operating a motor vehicle. Effective immediately.

What I am getting from this is they want to ban the operator of a motor vehicle from taking pictures while driving when approaching an incident. Am I wrong in my interpretation? Doesn't seem to prohibit the passenger or anyone else from snapping away.

That appears to be quite a different animal from what is implied in the news coverage. I guess if you already are restricting cell phone use while driving, limiting picture taking by the driver isn't that bad of an idea. Seems it will increase safety for first responders, if nothing else.

Now, I admit my limited investigation of this may be missing some important facts. It could be my reporting that is suspect and not the articles from Illinois. But that's what I have so far. We will keep you informed if there is actually more to this and another bill that is a bit more sinister.

What looks like an innocent picture of the picture takers, causes lots of controversy. Firefighters posing for cell phone photo at Winnipeg house fire is under investigation.

10 comments
Free Press photo by Boris Minkevich

When Free Press photographer Boris Minkevich took this shot on Thursday evening at a house fire on Redwood Avenue in Winnipeg, he thought it innocent enough. He told Free Press reporter Bartley Kives , "There were numerous firefighters waiting for the apparatus to be set up. This only lasted a moment. I perceived it as an innocent thing I would do myself. I've been to a lot of fires."

But Minkevich's job is to shoot pictures. The job of the two people in the photo is to fight fires and their boss at the Winnipeg Fire Paramedic Service isn't happy. The picture is also getting wide distribution having been published on a number of news sites in Canada and the United States.  Here are excerpts from Kives' article:

On Friday, WFPS Deputy Chief Ken Sim said his department planned to investigate in the evening, when the firefighters in question returned to work.

"Our perspective at this time is this was inappropriate," he said. "This is one of those pictures that begs the question, 'What were they assigned to do that allowed them to take the picture?' "

While firefighters are provided with cameras to document evidence, Sim said it appears the camera depicted in Minkevich's photo was a "non-issued device." Sim said his department will take "whatever action is necessary to take" once the firefighters in the photo are identified.

The president of the union representing Winnipeg firefighters shrugged off the investigation, noting the personnel in the photo could not do anything but wait until more equipment arrived to douse the blaze.

"Is it inappropriate? Probably. But we deal with life and death every single day," said Alex Forrest, president of the United Fire Fighters of Winnipeg. "I didn't get one call about (a recent) fatality and the firefighters who risked their lives trying to save someone, but I got a dozen calls about this one."