Photography Banned At Accident Scenes

[Christie Photo]

1) Police responsibility to secure scene.

1a) Photographer's responsibility realize a bit of compassion for fellow man.

It must be VERY DIFFICULT to write such notions into law ...

Maybe, as a society, we wouldn't feel the need to attempt such law if we could all control our own selfish impulses.

-Pete

 

[molested_cow]

If this is about not taking photos while driving, I definitely agree. They should ban non-hands free cell phone behaviors if they haven't. When I go jogging in the late afternoon, you have no idea how many drivers I see on their cellphones....

Anyways, seems that terrorism is working. Everyone is now paranoid of cameras. The government is trying to stop people from taking photos or videos left and right. You can't use cellphone or cameras or camcorders in "federal facilities", which include airports and such. Well, there are a lot of immigration officer abuse taking place in US airports but no one has the right to document that? What about police on duty? If I am not wrong, a judge in IL also ruled against a person for documenting bad police behaviors claiming that it's against the police's "privacy". Come on, it's a police office on duty in the public! If he has something to hide, there's something very wrong. Land of the free? Where?

 

[usayit]

1) Police responsibility to secure scene.

1a) Photographer's responsibility realize a bit of compassion for fellow man.

It must be VERY DIFFICULT to write such notions into law ...

Maybe, as a society, we wouldn't feel the need to attempt such law if we could all control our own selfish impulses.

-Pete

Totally agree.... see my previous comments except I wouldnt use the term responsibility. Police responsibility to secure scene is their job and duty it isnt the job of the photographer to be compassionate.


but


things like moral code, compassion, common sense, and yes religion have no place in law. By whose notion of moral, common sense, or definition of compasion should we deem absolute? Because of our diversity, writting such into law will no doubt always supress anothers rights. No one should fear legal threat for being an jerk, ass or (just like in France) not being PC enough.

 

[PASM]

things like moral code, compassion, common sense, and yes religion have no place in law.

Therefore allowing laws which are immoral, uncompassionate, nonsensical?

 

[usayit]

things like moral code, compassion, common sense, and yes religion have no place in law.

Therefore allowing laws which are immoral, uncompassionate, nonsensical?

This is a logical fallacy. One statement does not imply the other. Furthermore, moral code defines both immoral and moral. None of such notions belong on the law books but also does not necessarily imply that they do or do not already exist in current law.

PS
I noticed you left out religion in your statement.... hmm interesting position.

 

[PASM]

PS
I noticed you left out religion in your statement.... hmm interesting position.

Using to ad hominem provocations..no I'm not religious.

I think you're chasing your own tail with this one.

 

[usayit]

PS
I noticed you left out religion in your statement.... hmm interesting position.

Using to ad hominem provocations..no I'm not religious.

I think you're chasing your own tail with this one.

Not chasing anything.... I'm not religious either. You are misreading my intentions....

I lost a debate once because I made a single flawed argument based on a similar premise. In this case, its seems acceptable to write a particular peoples' "moral code" into law but not acceptable to write "religion" into law. You can't really argue one without the other and keep a strong position (as I have discovered) This is a common mistake (I made it as well) for those who are of not religious background (like me) who have a tendency to think of them separately rather than intertwined/related.

Both are capable of providing guidance to an acceptable "right and wrong" stance but them themselves shouldn't be the basis from which laws are written. If so, we as a society always run the risk of alienating or discriminating against a particular group of people.


For example, we as a society have stated that killing another is illegal. How did we come to that notion? From a Christian standpoint, we can argue that its against one of the commandments. However, the law cannot be written in such that killing is illegal because it is against the Biblical commandments. This can/will alienate others of non-religion or other faiths no matter how good the intentions. What we can write into law is that we as a society make murder illegal because it denies another individual the right to live. Or from a philosophical standpoint, we are denying society from benefiting from the person's existence... their future contribution to society.

This is the same as these common sense laws and so called "quality of life" laws. By who's definition are these laws being created? And do we stand the risk of making the larger group of people subject to these laws rather than the laws protecting the individuals.

ok .. i"m rambling sorry..

 

[Robin Usagani]

I didnt read all the responses but do you know that at most busy intersections in the US they use a camera to control the lights? (as opposed to a sensor the overlay underneath the asphalt). These camera are also recording everything. They can even move the camera around from the base. Funny how they want us not to record anything but the government record everything we do.

 

[Christie Photo]

...things like moral code, compassion, common sense, and yes religion have no place in law.

Agreed. Sadly, "we" have created a milieu that practically demands we legislate morality out of fear of unjust consequences. This is evident by the success of the ABC news television program "What Would You Do?" How often do we find ourselves in a situation that requires us to act but we hesitate to consider if another's offensive behavior is illegal? We wonder if intervention would invite legal retribution. Very sad.

...it isnt the job of the photographer to be compassionate.

I think it is. I think it's the "job" of all mankind, no matter what our profession. The problem is not all of us are really good at our job; some of us dismiss it entirely.

That's where the problem comes in. Our attempts to legislate morality haven't worked. Intensifying the attempt by addressing more and more circumstances or escalating the prescribed remedies can only lead to more failure and likely bring about more apathy.

I don't know what the answer will be. But I suspect any new laws, as good intentioned as they might be, would likely be twisted and abused to serve some other purpose.

-Pete

 

[PASM]

Look, set aside religion - it's another argument which dovetails into 'moral code' and using it's known dogma and hypocrisy to taint the first three criteria is weak and partisan.

If you assert moral code, compassion and common sense have no place in law - you embrace the same M.O as the laws which banned blacks from the front of the bus and jews from public parks. Yes you do 100% you do. This is OT with regard to this thread, so i'm withdrawing from further back and forth here with you guys.

...things like moral code, compassion, common sense, and yes religion have no place in law.

Agreed.

 

[usayit]

If you assert moral code, compassion and common sense have no place in law - you embrace the same M.O as the laws which banned blacks from the front of the bus and jews from public parks. Yes you do 100% you do. This is OT with regard to this thread, so i'm withdrawing from further back and forth here with you guys.

No incorrect. I don't embrace those laws. Not because they are against "moral code" but because they denied equal rights to all individuals. The one single flaw in all your stances is that you assume there exists a single moral code.. one that you embrace.

If you believe that laws should be written to enforce moral code then not allowing religious code into law is hypocrisy. You have yet to define who's moral code we are to follow. You can't simply write laws because it "feels" right.. or is compassionate. You have to write it with a solid foundation.

You can continue down this path argument but you cannot establish a strong foundation without first defining by which moral code we are to legislate.

btw...
This is the same statement made in many separation of church and state debates. "You can continue down this path argument but you cannot establish a strong foundation without first defining by which religion we are to legislate." Its easy for anyone to tear apart your argument until you define religion and/or moral code.

Or

you can continue to answer with emotion.. it doesn't matter to me.

 

[usayit]

Agreed. Sadly, "we" have created a milieu that practically demands we legislate morality out of fear of unjust consequences.

But I suspect any new laws, as good intentioned as they might be, would likely be twisted and abused to serve some other purpose.

Well stated. We fail to solve problems in society so we shove it down peoples' throats with legislation.

Shall we discuss education now? lol How nothing I'm saying is new and that it should have been covered at high school level and philosophy courses? oh yeh.. they (along with other things like arts and music) have been replaced with computer classes and stupid college prep stuff. ( i know, I'm a direct result.. only to have discovered the "holes" in my education in my later years on my own and through my acquaintances / coworkers / friends) Learned more now ever before.