Videoing an incident - Was: Double fatality - Tandem - Jonesville, NC - 13 Sept 2008

[RhondaLea 3]

James Duane and George Bruch, all in one video:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&hl=en

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[rwieder 0]

At my DZ, i was doing the paperwork as usual. Then i got to a clause i'd NEVER seen before. There was a amendment in the contract that if you (Me) catch aything wiierd ontape, theyhave the rigt to immediately take possession of your memory stick and your tape. End of deal. It leaves no room for arguement. If i decide i don't like those rules and the S&TA (Whom i have a great deal and respect for) for enforcing the rulses, it's my perogative to go somewhere else.

It is what it is.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[DSE 3]

If your copy in *any way* interferes, compromises, impacts, or influences a criminal investigation, you can, and may be charged.
The Fifth amendment may not be used in this instance.
A videographer that has video of a tandem fatality is not able to take the Fifth to protect himself. It's pretty simple. You have video of a potential crime scene (which is how these sorts of fatalites are classified) and you are required to hand over any evidence you have that may assist in the investigation. You're not at risk of being charged. Yes, you can hold on to the tape and say "Fuck you until I speak with an attorney." But why? Why would you hamper an investigation of a tandem fatality? Why would you bring down the hell your DZ is going to go thru in this event, and make it worse by being a dick to investigating officers? Why prolong the agony of the families involved?
It's real easy to be cavalier about what you would and wouldn't do when you've never had to do it. Go ahead, be an asshole. Make it harder on everyone at the DZ because you want a copy of the fatality so you can be the creep that puts it on YouTube to play to the macabre crowd. *(I mean "you" in the sense of third person, not aimed at anyone in particular).
I'll be glad that *you* don't work at my DZ, where vidiots sign a reiease that says the DZ owns your work product anyway. So in the event that this happens at *my* DZ, I'll take your tape/card from you and hand it over anyway.

[normiss 622]

booyah

[RhondaLea 3]

Quote

If your copy in *any way* interferes, compromises, impacts, or influences a criminal investigation, you can, and may be charged.
The Fifth amendment may not be used in this instance.
A videographer that has video of a tandem fatality is not able to take the Fifth to protect himself. It's pretty simple. You have video of a potential crime scene (which is how these sorts of fatalites are classified) and you are required to hand over any evidence you have that may assist in the investigation. You're not at risk of being charged. Yes, you can hold on to the tape and say "Fuck you until I speak with an attorney." But why? Why would you hamper an investigation of a tandem fatality? Why would you bring down the hell your DZ is going to go thru in this event, and make it worse by being a dick to investigating officers? Why prolong the agony of the families involved?
It's real easy to be cavalier about what you would and wouldn't do when you've never had to do it. Go ahead, be an asshole. Make it harder on everyone at the DZ because you want a copy of the fatality so you can be the creep that puts it on YouTube to play to the macabre crowd. *(I mean "you" in the sense of third person, not aimed at anyone in particular).
I'll be glad that *you* don't work at my DZ, where vidiots sign a reiease that says the DZ owns your work product anyway. So in the event that this happens at *my* DZ, I'll take your tape/card from you and hand it over anyway.

Nothing that you've said has much to do with real law--and a real lawyer even told you that you're wrong in your interpretation--but what you've written above does seem like a personal attack on someone, although I can't tell whether it's against the person who asked the original question or against those who would argue that just because it's a skydiving incident, the law does not fly out the window.

I don't know any skydiving videographer who wouldn't give the tape to the police, but I haven't known any who haven't kept a copy either. None of those copies ever ended up on YouTube, although I did watch the dzo and some of the other staff watch one of them to see if they could figure out what the fuck had gone wrong.

If people give up their rights, they will lose those rights. It's that simple. Just because it's about skydiving doesn't make it an exception.

Note to Richard: People can agree to just about anything, and if it's not illegal and/or not against the public policy, it will be enforceable in civil court. That's not the argument here. Your agreement is with your dropzone, not with the police, and the police do not have the authority to enforce a civil contract.

Going back to DSE's comment that the dz owns the work product--that may well be true by contract, but if you go taking people's property from them forcibly, that may well be a crime. And even if the dz owns "work product," they probably don't own the media or anything on the media that isn't work product (where I worked, the videographers paid for their media), which makes taking that media without permission theft.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[pirana 0]

Interesting point about SAN storage. We record calls and 2 times that I am aware of we gave copies (.wav files) to the police upon their request. Our legal counsel said we could have denied until they got a subpeona, but there was no point in doing that. But the nature of that storage system dictates that what they get are copies. (Does "original" have much significance in that type of media?)

I notice the distinction of crime scene pointed out a few times. It must make a difference as to whether what a person has was directly linked to the accident or the scene, versus just having something that might aid the investigation.

You wouldn't believe this one idiot though. Our greeting, which can not be bypassed, clearly discloses that we record the calls. He then leaves a message that not only threatens, but describes in detail a crime already committed.

Darwin's concept in action.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[hackish 8]

It seems creepy but a few times when I have read incidents I've wished that I could see video of some event just to better understand how some entanglement or malfunction happened or behaved. On the other side I suppose it's carefully weighing the benefit of watching such a thing against the harm it would do to the sport when it arrived on youtube for all the wuffos to see.

I wish any of my professors were as animated as James Duane. His advice is tough to swallow when it comes to something you morally believe in. I own a webmail system and from time to time am asked to provide info about users suspected in the possession of child pornography. Sometimes it has helped catch perps. I'll probably always try to help out in that.

Similarly a skydiver may feel the same way in that their video may show the cause of a mal and prevent their DZO friend from being scrutinized for some other non-contributing factor.

Some years ago I dated a lawyer. She always grumbled saying I should always insist on them getting a warrant. She too always said "Don't talk to the police". Co-incidence? I think not.

I wonder what your rights are in terms of obtaining legal advice before turning a video over. For example if you said "I want to talk to my lawyer to find out what my rights are before giving you anything" Can they still get you for impeding an investigation?

-Michael

[normiss 622]

"I don't know any skydiving videographer who wouldn't give the tape to the police"

You haven't met many vidiots yet, have you.

[MomDaBomb 0]

Just curious, do they give the tape back when they are done with the investigation? If a family member asked to view it, would you let them?

[DSE 3]

This topic isn't about "giving up rights." Sure...it might be a "crime" to forcibly take a tape from a videographer if he won't give it up, even though he's already signed a contract that says he will. Far as I'm concerned, that's grounds to be fired, have his ass kicked, and then take the tape/card from him anyway.

Doesn't matter if it's a skydiving accident, train/truck accident, or cat-jumped-out-of-tree" accident, it's a crime scene when someone dies. Any evidence that exists that will help investigators determine the causes of death must be turned over, and they do indeed need a subpoena to take it from you if you're being an asshole not interested in helping close the case. The concept of Fifth Amendment applying here is sheer idiocy. The owner of the tape isn't incriminated in any way, and has nothing to protect. Requiring a subpoena only puts others through more pain, difficulty, cost, and gains nothing for anyone except the stupid ass that won't help close the investigation.

Quote

And even if the dz owns "work product," they probably don't own the media or anything on the media that isn't work product (where I worked, the videographers paid for their media), which makes taking that media without permission theft.

If I laugh any harder at the ridiculousness of this statement, I'll probably lose bowel control. If you feel it's an attack, it's not. It's simply ridicule.

Either way, this isn't the Bonfire nor Speakers corner.
Discuss "rights" there, not here.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Either way, this isn't the Bonfire nor Speakers corner.
Discuss "rights" there, not here.

If that's the case then discussions about copyright issues shouldn't be here either.

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

Either way, this isn't the Bonfire nor Speakers corner.
Discuss "rights" there, not here.

If that's the case then discussions about copyright issues shouldn't be here either.

Oh, but I disagree. Copyrights are something videographers and photographers have to deal with every single day. There are no debates about what is legal and what isn't. There may be debates about what you might be working on to be legal, or what you might do to protect your copyrights...but that is quite different than debating Fifth Amendment laws, or being a deliberate asshole to LEA. This discussion is closer to debating whether or not one must pay taxes than it is to discussing protecting creative property.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

or being a deliberate asshole to LEA.

Ah, but when the footage that you freely handed over to the cops (who, btw, are generally not experts in figuring out what happened in any skydiving incident) shows up on the news, or worse yet, in the hands of the lawyer that the passengers family hired to sue the dz you jump at... well, then who's the asshole?

[shropshire 0]

What is the extent of the Crime Scene (radius)...

So, what if you could remotely download the content of a camera via WiFi for example, without touching or even going near to the orginal camera.

Or if the original footage was transmitted live to a server or direct onto the internet.

Surely the cops would be able to do anything about these circumstances.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[DSE 3]

Quote

Quote

or being a deliberate asshole to LEA.

Ah, but when the footage that you freely handed over to the cops (who, btw, are generally not experts in figuring out what happened in any skydiving incident) shows up on the news, or worse yet, in the hands of the lawyer that the passengers family hired to sue the dz you jump at... well, then who's the asshole?

The LEA.
If the officer takes a tape for purposes of investigation and it ends up on the 6o'clock news, then it is the responsibility of his superior.
Unlike a surveillance video where law enforcement might be seeking public assistance in identifying a criminal engaged in a crime that affects the general public, a skydiving incident in which the names and involvement of all participants are known isn't something that would be released to the media for public input.
Show me any example otherwise.
I do have in my possession video of skydiving fatalities. I do know the videographers that shot them quite well. In all cases, they gave up their tapes, and had their tapes returned after LEO made a copy of them. I'm sure there have been/will be cases that LEA won't return the tapes, but in that event, the videographer, USPA, FAA, whomever has the right to make a claim to have them returned.
The lawyer of the passengers family is absolutely entitled to any evidence that may be used to incriminate or exonerate the victim. It cannot be unduly withheld. C'mon...you know this already. It's very basic stuff.
LEO may not turn those tapes over to the family attorney without a subpoena anymore than the vidiot is required to hand them over without a subpoena.
One is a criminal issue, the other a civil issue.

To Shropshire;
What if you could mentally beam your thoughts and what your brain saw into a digital recording device and send it to the starship Enterprise? We can play "what if" all day long. My point was and is, a copy itself isn't an issue. It's what you DO with that copy that can become an issue. Most skydivers would give a copy of the copy to a friend and say "Don't do anything with this" and then be stupid enough to wonder how it ended up on YouTube. Which is why I refuse to give copies of "oops" to anyone except the DZO.

Here's the bottom line, IMO; fuck with the FAA and law enforcement when there is a fatality and come back with your report on how fun they made it for you.
I'm sure that technically, the minutiae and microstudy of various and numerous loopholes in the laws can allow for a lot of leeway. I can't foresee a single instance where withholding a card or tape from law enforcement has any merit or value, because it's a matter of a phone call to a judge for them to get a subpoena any way. Judges can now send signed PDF files to any police car in the USA which the officer can print on-site. I've seen it done on at least half a dozen occasions.

There is no reasonable point at which you might refuse to assist investigators in determining what may have caused a skydiving fatality.
If the TI messed up, he messed up. And everyone deserves to know why. If a sport jumper wore a weightbelt he'd never worn and it caused him to slam into another jumper, breaking his neck, we need to know about that, too. Both are incidents of which I have video, and both are incidents that LEO's had tape of, which were returned to the DZ at which these incidents occurred. Be an asshat with the FAA, see how long it takes for the FSDO to be up your asshole with a flashlight and tweezers. And for what? Because you decided to force the issue of debatable rights that you'll lose in every instance, every time?

[DSE 3]

Because this is a discussion that impacts all of skydiving, it seems better suited for the Bonfire.
Have at it.

[normiss 622]

can we get the removed comments back???

[DSE 3]

Quote

can we get the removed comments back???

I wish...my moderation privileges don't extend to un-deleting threads. But it would be fun to show the ignorance previously demonstrated in this thread.

[RhondaLea 3]

Your wish is my command.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[normiss 622]

Stop!
It hurts!!!

[BMFin 0]

Quote

If your copy in *any way* interferes, compromises, impacts, or influences a criminal investigation, you can, and may be charged.

Im curious... In what circumstances could the copy in *any way* interfere, compromise, impact or influence a criminal investigation ?

[rwieder 0]

I guess this all boils down to is what is written in your DZ contract regarding the chain of custody of any footage of a 'CRIME SCENE" The thing the DZO might want to keep in mind is misc, personal just "Hanging Around" drinkig beer while they watch their kids do their tandem, AFF, Static line etc..

The contract i signed says basically "Hand It Over" I discussed this with the S$TA, he advised me what all of that clause entailed, after the discussion, i clearly inserstood, signed my waivers with no problem.

In 1963 when JFK was assinated, do you think John Zapruder gave that film up willingly? I think not, he knew what the value of the footage, but in the end he was given no choice, he gave it uo, right along with about 100 other people that police observed shooting stills.

It's one of those things a lot of people may think it's slightly communistic, it is what it is.

-Richard-
"You're Holding The Rope And I'm Taking The Fall"

[Skydivesg 6]

And once again we get sent to ................"moderator purgatory".

I think this is a record for me. I've been moved twice in the same thread............

Be the canopy pilot you want that other guy to be.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

LEO may not turn those tapes over to the family attorney without a subpoena anymore than the vidiot is required to hand them over without a subpoena.

If all cops followed the law like they are supposed to then I might agree with you. But it's been proven time and time again that they don't.

Since cops often do more to make it difficult to determine the cause of an incident than they do to help, I see no reason to happily hand over my tape or media card without them proving to the satisfaction of a judge that what is on that tape or card is needed.

Quote

I can't foresee a single instance where withholding a card or tape from law enforcement has any merit or value, because it's a matter of a phone call to a judge for them to get a subpoena any way. Judges can now send signed PDF files to any police car in the USA which the officer can print on-site. I've seen it done on at least half a dozen occasions.

Quote

Requiring a subpoena only puts others through more pain, difficulty, cost, and gains nothing for anyone except the stupid ass that won't help close the investigation.

If it's so easy for them to get the subpeona then "the stupid ass" isn't putting anyone through any additional "pain" or "difficulty" - it's merely requiring that law enforcement do their job the way the law requires that it be done.

Quote

There is no reasonable point at which you might refuse to assist investigators in determining what may have caused a skydiving fatality.

Investigators who have experience investigating skydiving incidents? Or the local PD, who may have issues with the dz in question due to after sunset activities?

You're welcome to trust law enforcement as much as you'd like. Those who don't are not assholes - they're just not quite as naive as you may be.

[skybytch 259]

Quote

Because this is a discussion that impacts all of skydiving, it seems better suited for the Bonfire.

A discussion that impacts all of skydiving is best suited for the forum where the majority of threads have nothing at all to do with skydiving?

Makes perfect sense to me.