how sick can you get --- rant

[NastyWoman]

Really have we lost all sense of humanity.  This is so sick there is no frEEzer big enough to contain it


"CLEVELAND (Reuters) - An Ohio man was charged on Wednesday for entering a vehicle after an accident where he filmed two injured teenagers, one of whom later died, while calling them “idiots” and making no effort to help them, police said."

news.yahoo.com/ohio-police-charge-man-filmed-didnt-aid-teens-220324527.html#

[mmhmm]

Good grief! How could anyone do that? It boggles the mind! 

[Tennesseer]

The man arrested will get what's due him some day.

[Jaguar]

Geez that's beyond the pale.

[Tennesseer]

Many, many years ago, I was driving behind some guy driving a VW bug.  The VW driver did not see the large delivery truck in front of him had his left turn signal on.  The VW driver plowed right into the back of the delivery truck.  The truck had a lower metal bar on its backend.  The bar cut through the front of the VW and partially, but very cleanly, cut through his forehead and into his brain.  

There was not much I could do for the man other than hold his hand and talk to him as we waited for the ambulance to arrive.  He died a few hours later.  It turns out he was the father of a high school classmate of mine.  She thanked me later for my kindness.

I felt bad for my schoolmate's family as I had to tell the insurance companies involved in regards to what I had witnessed.  The VW driver was at fault.

[NancysSummerSip]

My take on this is a little different: he filmed underaged children without parental consent. Both were 17, according to the article. My understanding is that you cannot record the image of a minor and reuse that recording for any purpose without explicit consent of the parents.
OK, I realize that it's beyond absurd under the circumstances to expect anyone to ask any kind of permission here, but that's not really why I mention it. I mention it because he could also be charged with violating videotaping consent laws, since he not only filmed, but posted the video. Seems only fair to charge him with as much as possible. Just the one charge (unlawfully entering a vehicle) is hardly enough. In Florida, you can be charged criminally for NOT rendering aid in a situation like that.

I just read through Ohio's electronic communications interception statute and my interpretation is that he committed a felony doing what he did.

[zibazinski]

Did anything happen to the paparazzi that took shots of Diana dying and didn't render aid?

[ArchietheDragon]

Jul 17, 2015 13:41:19 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Did anything happen to the paparazzi that took shots of Diana dying and didn't render aid?

I don't know.  But I do know that award winning photojournalist Kevin Carter punished himself after photographing the atrocities of Sudan without rendering any aid. 

[lexxy703]

Unthinkable.

[dannylion]

When I was in college in the 1960s I had a part-time job in the electronics department of a big department store.  One of the full-time salesmen was a retired firefighter.  I recall him talking about a horrific accident scene where a newspaper photographer stepped up on a body to get a better angle for his shot. It's not just amateurs who lose their humanity (if they ever had any) in pursuit of photographic fame or whatever this doofus morally bankrupt p.o.s. was after.

I hope he gets the opportunity to experience the consequences of his actions.  

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Neighbors tried to help the pair while Pelton filmed, and at no time did he try to assist, police said

Since Lorrain OH is a relatively small community outside of Cleveland (pop. approx 65,000), he won't be able to keep this quiet.

Everyone in the town from neighbors, family, friends, employer, shop owners, and fellow workers and general residents will know what this man did.

He'll be known as the sourge of the community.

He definitely should be charged with more than a misdemeanor - he was not only not providing assistance, he was hindering those who were.

[NancysSummerSip]

Jul 17, 2015 13:41:19 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Did anything happen to the paparazzi that took shots of Diana dying and didn't render aid?

Different country, different set of rules. And in the U.S., the fail to render aid law is not applicable in all states. I was looking for a list of states that have the law on the books, but cannot find one.

From Wikipedia:

France

The photographers at the scene of the fatal car collision of Diana, Princess of Wales were investigated for violation of the French law of "non-assistance à personne en danger" (deliberately failing to provide assistance to a person in danger), which can be punished by up to 5 years imprisonment and a fine of up to $100,000.

Anyone who fails to render assistance to a person in danger will be found liable before French Courts (civil and criminal liability). The penalty for this offence in criminal courts is imprisonment and a fine (under article 223–6 of the Criminal Code) while in civil courts judges will order payment of pecuniary compensation to the victims.[32]

[hoops902]

Jul 17, 2015 13:41:19 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Did anything happen to the paparazzi that took shots of Diana dying and didn't render aid?

The article mentions he only got charged because he opened the car door and "entered" the vehicle...not because he took video or anything else.  Specifically it says because he entered a crime scene.

Frankly, all of it sounds like a bunch of BS to me?  You're saying if I saw an accident and opened a car door I'd be charged?  What if I don't help...I look inside, think moving anyone looks risky, and don't do a thing?

The way the police explain it, whether he videotaped it or not, or whether he offered assistance or not may be of no relevance.  They're claiming it's due purely to him entering the vehicle which is the scene of a crime without permission.  Again, sounds like a bunch of BS to me.

[hoops902]

From the article:

Pelton committed a crime only when he entered the car without permission, Sivert said. If convicted, he faces a maximum of 30 days in jail and a $250 fine.

“We searched to try to find anything to charge him with,” Sivert said. “It is not a crime to stick a camera where a kid is dying or try to sell it.”

My problem is when the police stop worrying about actually enforcing laws, and instead "try to find anything to charge" someone with simply because they think morally his actions were wrong.  That's not their business.  They acknowledged other people were there trying to help...did they arrest anyone else who entered the car without permission?  Doubtful!

[ArchietheDragon]

Jul 17, 2015 15:25:08 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jul 17, 2015 13:41:19 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Did anything happen to the paparazzi that took shots of Diana dying and didn't render aid?

The article mentions he only got charged because he opened the car door and "entered" the vehicle...not because he took video or anything else.  Specifically it says because he entered a crime scene.

Frankly, all of it sounds like a bunch of BS to me?  You're saying if I saw an accident and opened a car door I'd be charged?  What if I don't help...I look inside, think moving anyone looks risky, and don't do a thing?

The way the police explain it, whether he videotaped it or not, or whether he offered assistance or not may be of no relevance.  They're claiming it's due purely to him entering the vehicle which is the scene of a crime without permission.  Again, sounds like a bunch of BS to me.

he acted like an asshole so they tried to find something to charge him with.  

[hoops902]

Yeah, that's my problem with it.  Their job isn't to "find something" to charge people with who they personally dislike. 

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

Jul 17, 2015 15:28:07 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

From the article:

Pelton committed a crime only when he entered the car without permission, Sivert said. If convicted, he faces a maximum of 30 days in jail and a $250 fine.

“We searched to try to find anything to charge him with,” Sivert said. “It is not a crime to stick a camera where a kid is dying or try to sell it.”

My problem is when the police stop worrying about actually enforcing laws, and instead "try to find anything to charge" someone with simply because they think morally his actions were wrong.  That's not their business.  They acknowledged other people were there trying to help...did they arrest anyone else who entered the car without permission?  Doubtful!

A few years back, DH and I were driving home on the highway late after a weekend out at our land, with another car of friends behind us. The weather was terrible - raining, and slick conditions. There was a semi-trailer about 1/4 mi ahead of us. It lost control and flipped/overturned into the ditch.

We and the other car - as well as a few other people stopped to see if there was anything that could be done. (It was before cell-phones, but we had a mobile phone in the truck. DH & a couple of the guys went over to check out the scene while we stayed and got on the phone to get emergency crews there.

Then we went to help out til the police/ambulances could get there. The driver was conscious but in really bad shape - and pinned in the cab/wreckage. The windshield had popped out, and the guys used that to shield the driver from the elements - but didn't try to move or touch him - and we just kept talking to him to try to keep him conscious til help arrived.

It was the next day on the news when we learned he hadn't made it.

The jerk in the link was a hothead who was obviously pissed that they were "inexperienced" drivers/kids - and instead of helping those who were trying to provide assistance - or just staying out of their way, he was too busy filming and calling the kids idiots.

[hoops902]

::he was too busy filming and calling the kids idiots. ::

Which isn't illegal.  I wouldn't mind if some bystander had walked up and punched him in the mouth.  I do care that some police think it's their job to take people they personally dislike and scrounge up things to charge them with purely because they don't like the person...particularly when other people are doing the same things and they aren't charging them.

[Virgil Showlion]

I thought this kind of thing was punishable under laws against depraved indifference to human life, no?

There was a movie in the iTunes rentals I saw a few months ago called "Nightcrawler" (I think that was the name). I didn't watch it, but the synopsis described the main character as a psychopath who drove around seeking (or in some cases even setting up) disasters, violent confrontations, etc. in order to capture them on video. The blurb suggested it was "based on" an actual industry.

Obviously shows like "Jerry Springer", which are a theatrical type of this voyeurism, have been around for a while. I read something about "Bum Fights" more recently, where a 'producer' paid bums (itinerants) to fight. zibazinski rightly mentions the paparazzi after Princess Diana's fatal crash. Maybe this is turning into something on the scale of an "industry". It's not as if the content wouldn't fit in with other popular shows on TV or the Internet today.

[hoops902]

Jul 17, 2015 16:11:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I thought this kind of thing was punishable under laws against depraved indifference to human life, no?

No, that's usually restricted to things which actually cause the harm, but it's a way to get around intent.  For example, driving drunk would qualify in many places, because it can directly to lead to someone's death but without any actual intent to end someone's life.  Depraved indifference to human life is more about someone who would have committed a more serious crime if they could prove intent, but where they can be pretty sure intent did not exist (essentially "You may not have intended to kill Joe, but your actions were so brazenly dangerous to the public in general that you clearly didn't care if you killed SOMEONE with them).  It's not really for bystander failure to render assistance. 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 17, 2015 16:20:01 GMT -5 hoops902 said:

Jul 17, 2015 16:11:32 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

I thought this kind of thing was punishable under laws against depraved indifference to human life, no?

No, that's usually restricted to things which actually cause the harm, but it's a way to get around intent.  For example, driving drunk would qualify in many places, because it can directly to lead to someone's death but without any actual intent to end someone's life.  Depraved indifference to human life is more about someone who would have committed a more serious crime if they could prove intent, but where they can be pretty sure intent did not exist (essentially "You may not have intended to kill Joe, but your actions were so brazenly dangerous to the public in general that you clearly didn't care if you killed SOMEONE with them).  It's not really for bystander failure to render assistance. 

You have educated me, sir.

[ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ]

My problem is when the police stop worrying about actually enforcing laws, and instead "try to find anything to charge" someone with simply because they think morally his actions were wrong. That's not their business. They acknowledged other people were there trying to help...did they arrest anyone else who entered the car without permission? Doubtful!

The difference is, the other people were trying to render assistance to the injured parties.

The jerk with the camera who entered the vehicle wasn't - and he was basically hindering their efforts.

If he was so intent on being a jerk and video-taping the victims while screaming at them, he could have just as easily done so from the sidelines.

[hoops902]

Jul 17, 2015 17:00:53 GMT -5 ՏՇԾԵԵʅՏɧ_LԹՏՏʅҼ said:

My problem is when the police stop worrying about actually enforcing laws, and instead "try to find anything to charge" someone with simply because they think morally his actions were wrong. That's not their business. They acknowledged other people were there trying to help...did they arrest anyone else who entered the car without permission? Doubtful!

The difference is, the other people were trying to render assistance to the injured parties.

The jerk with the camera who entered the vehicle wasn't - and he was basically hindering their efforts.

If he was so intent on being a jerk and video-taping the victims while screaming at them, he could have just as easily done so from the sidelines.

The officer explicitly said it was because he entered a vehicle without permission.  He said nothing of the guy hindering their efforts, and in fact nobody said he was hindering any efforts.  He also didn't say it was because the guy entered, but not in an effort to give assistance.  If he'd said they were charging him with obstructing assistance to an injured party or something I wouldn't have any issue.  The officer explicitly said it was because he entered the car without permission, and also explicitly said that they were just trying to find anything they could so they could charge him with SOMETHING.

It's not like I have any special feelings toward this guy, or even wish he wasn't charged.  But I have issues with police officers deciding that they're going to charge people with things based on whether they like the guy or not.  Particularly when they go on record admitting they've basically just found someone they want to charge with SOMETHING, and then went to work actively figuring out what they could pin on him.

I don't really think "he's an asshole" is a legitimate reason for the police to charge someone with a crime.  This certainly isn't the only time it has occurred.  I'd almost rather the cops just didn't say anything...in this case they came out and pretty much told everyone the videotaping and screaming and all that was perfectly legal, so they were just drumming up charges based on entering a crime scene...even though we know other people did it too without getting charged.  It's a problem in my opinion when those who are supposed to be upholding the law decide they're going to use the law to police their own personal morality.

It also just kind of highlights the stupidity of laws.  I can yell and scream and videotape someone who is dying...but if I go into their car I've committed a crime?  What are the exceptions to that (if any)?  What if I go into their car but after seeing them I don't help them for a good reason?  What if I help them and in the process make it worse?