So, they can do anything up to actual murder and you are fine with it?
Gotta be honest, I’m ok with some jackass trying to film a guy jumping to his death being told to GTFO.
So am I. I probably would tell him the same.
I’m not okay with him being arrested for doing so.
I’m cool with the arrest too, given that this was an active emergency situation and the camera mans presence was legitimately interfering with the police ability to resolve the situation without loss of life.
AKA I’m not faulting the police for trying to save a man’s life. That is what I desperately want them to do.
I’m not sure I am willing to leave that sort of discretion up to the judgement of the police. I am not really swayed that he was legitimately interfering with the police ability to resolve the situation without loss of life. That was what the cops claimed, but I’m not sure I really believe that. If it were the case that people within his view were agitating him, wouldn’t that mean that the cops should clear out too?
It seems that someone quietly filming would be far less agitating than someone being confronted and arrested.
Had he not been recording, just watching, would you say the same?
I don’t really like setting the precedent that a cop can simply declare that you are interfering with them, even if you are hundreds of feet away.
Who’s discretion should it be up to?
Let’s assume for the moment that X is in charge of getting this poor bastard down from the tower at less than free fall speeds. X decides that having a local yokel filming from the field is a bad idea. I’m comfortable with X asking the police to clear the area, for the safety of PB. The fact that X is the police is not relevant, they have been placed in charge of PB’s safety, rightly or wrongly, and they should take that responsibility seriously. I would agree that someone other than the police should be in charge of these matters, but that isn’t how it was during this emergency.
First Amendment concerns have always had the “shouting FIRE in a theater” exceptions, for the exact reason that certain free expressions have the potential to cause immediate harm to others.
Cops declaring that people are interfering is a precedent that is already well set, and I agree with limiting that power, but not when they appear to be using that power to safeguard the life of someone.
The article says the guy in Corruna, Michigan measured the distance from the tower to where he was standing as 477 feet. It’s not clear to me how being that far back would interfere with the police.
Could the dude on the tower still see him?
No idea. Is that relevant?
The issue in this case is not that he was interfering with what the police were doing, but that “the man was agitated by people within his view.” If this guy’s presence was agitating the suicidal dude, it doesn’t really matter how far away he was.
Also, if you’re told your presence is causing issues at the scene of a potential suicide and you don’t get the fuck out of the way, then you’re endangering a life and are a despicable person even if you’re legally entitled to be there.
All this is, of course, granting the accuracy of the above account, and it’s possible the police are lying about it.
This was an arrest, right? Not merely a temporary detainment? An arrest should only happen if (1) the cop witnesses a crime or (2) they have a warrant from a judge. Discretion only applies in option (1), which does not appear to apply here.
Even if I assume the guy is a moral degenerate, I do not in any way think cops should be empowered to enforce morality in any way that a regular citizen couldn’t. That is not what they are given authority for.
Now, if he was actually in the way, then I can see acting. But any action that takes away the liberty of someone involved should be reviewable by the public to see if it is actually justified. That action should not, however, include an arrest unless a crime was committed.
Because, at the end of the day, the police are merely servants of “We the People.” They should always be held accountable by the people—either directly or through our laws. We give them extra authority because we trust them to enact the will of the public. If they fail that, then they don’t deserve that authority.
Relevant to whether the filmer’s presence may make it more likely for the dude to jump to his death? Yes, absolutely, completely, and undeniably relevant. In fact, the article above said this. That the man was agitated by the people in view.
No, it said that the cops said that the man was agitated by people in his view.
I suppose that doesn’t include the cops themselves.
If a news crew from a local TV news station showed up, would the police ask them to leave? Would they comply with the police request to leave and not film what was happening? If not, would the news crew be arrested?
I’m genuinely curious if this has ever happened: Has a news crew left a scene because the police asked? Googling isn’t helping me here.
I’m also curious as to how they would react to someone on their own private property. Around here, there are high tension lines that are anchored basically in people’s back yards. If someone was standing out on their deck, would they be told to leave or be arrested?
What a stupid thing to say. He was 477 feet away. Should the cops have evacuated the entire population of the town to the next county over so that the townsfolk’s “presence” wouldn’t disturb the highly irrational man?
We do know that asshole cops pepper-balled people on their own front stoops for not going inside. So, I wouldn’t past asshole cops to do those sorts of asshole things.
You’re asking me whether I believe the cops or a YouTube Provocateur. I may not like the police, but YTP’s are the dregs of humanity.
What other broad classes of people do you lump together?
If the police are attempting to defuse an imminent suicide, they should take those actions which seem reasonable and prudent under the circumstances. If the guy is in the middle of Times Square and is agitated by bystanders, it is probably impracticable to attempt to clear them all away. In this case, there was one guy (or at least, only one guy we know about who refused the order to vamoose.) In that circumstance, it is perfectly reasonable for the cops to tell the guy to bug off, and to enforce that order.
Incidentally, I don’t think the erstwhile videographer should have been arrested, but rather merely detained until the situation was resolved. Bundle him into the back seat of a police cruiser till they got the suicidal guy down, then let him go, or if that wasn’t sufficient drive him to the police station and let him go there. As he wasn’t actually committing an offense, there is no reason to arrest him.
And again, this is granting that the police’s account is accurate, which it may not be.