All I'm saying, us that when a photographer is within ten feet of a car, where we are performing extensive extrication, he has no need to be there. Even if it's only because he is putting his own life at risk because he doesn't have the proper protective clothing on.
To make it clear, when we close a road down, it is no longer publicly accesible and therefore we have EVERY right to tell the photographer to get off of our accident scene because he is endangering himself, and getting in the way of our life saving operations. I have absolutely no issue with them coming in once the victims are extrcicated and gone, and we are just cleaning up.
You think I'm on a bad power trip? Funny, I feel the same way about photographers who feel the need to exert their so called "rights" to the extreme. Let me make it clear: while emergency crews are on scene at ANY incident they were called to, that have EVERY right to throw out ANYONE they feel is getting in their way. Ive seen my chief throw a sheriff out because he was interfering with us doing our job.
When it comes down to it, the rescue crew doing their job is hand down more important than a newspaper having good photos. Would you rather have a victim live and you miss a photo, or the victim die and you get a good photo? If you choose the latter you are a sick, sick person.
Photojournalists can do their job just fine from 100-200 feet away and that's all there is to it. They have zero reason to get so close that we are having to walk around them to get back to our fire truck to get a tool.
Legally photojournalists have a right to be at an accident scene and certainly closer than 100 feet away as long as they are not in the way of firefighters doing their job and implying that photographers are in the way if they are closer than 100 to 200 feet from the scene is patently a great stretch in imagination and spin that would be tough to prove in court.
On the other hand, case law has shown that a victim has an expectation to privacy while being attened to by a paramedic etc., even if he/she is in a public place. So photos of the firefighting, rescue efforts, police or firefighters are O.K. but when it comes to victims, it may depend on the particular details of the shot.
skieur
Right. Legally the photojournalist does have the right. However, and I'm only speaking legally here, the IC (incident commander) who is in most cases a Fire Chief, can tell ANYONE they are not allowed on the scene, for pretty much whatever reason he decides. It's his scene, and he controls all aspects of it. I'm not saying the photog doesn't have the right, just that the Chief's call overrides the photojournalists right in this case, because the Chief is in control of a life safety operation.
My chief's new policy, is that we don't allow members of the media in until the scene is stabilized and secure, meaning that the victims are extricated and en route to a medical facility, and/or the fire is out, etc. Basically, once our life safety role is done, he will allow media inside of our perimeter to take photos/video. May not make the media happy, but we've had issues with them, and this is how he's taking care of it. It's his call to make.