Fujifilm's X-Pro1, now M Mount friendly
Olympus' Micro Four Thirds 75mm prime
Can you fix the focus on a blurry photo after the fact?
The birth of Mirrorless Cameras
The Joy Of Winning A Photo Contest
Choosing your first dSLR camera
New York City can be beautiful!
Choosing the Right Light Stand
Photojojo iPhone Telephoto Lens review — AudioCast
How To Buy Digital Photo Frames For An Exhibit - Part 2
Hey MAC users! A great source and an April Fool that is no joke
My week with Q
How To Become A Successful Photographer
"When the Wind Stopped" — poem with 4 photos
Creating The New Family Portrait
Tips for Textures 
Cast aways - saving those photographic memories
One Man Show: My 25 Years With Digital Photography
Studio, Flash, & Available Light — Three Books Reviewed
Portrait styling: dangerous pairings
Adobe Photoshop CS6 Product Managers Interview Audiocast
A gift of flowers: unfold your senses
On Set of "Love & Robots" the Film
No-Brainer Setup For A Digital Photo Frame Exhibit - Part 3
Exhibiting With Digital Photo Frames (DPF) Part 1
Planning “National Geographic” style photo travel
Find Inner Peace and Beauty at San Jose, California, Airport
Wilderness Travel 1 Rainforests – Essential Gear
Backlighting Basics
What Moves You?
FIGURES IN MOTION: Decades of Evolving Personal Imagery in Photography, Part 7
Lomography Store, Austin, Texas — GALLERY
GALLERY — Up to $1,000 Reward for Cattle Rustlers
25% off on photography eBooks
eyePhone: The eBook for iPhone Photographers
Interview with Harold Davis — Closeup Maestro of Flowers & Water Drops
Interview with Steve Caplin — Photoshop Digital Artist, Commercial Illustrator, & Author
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 3 of 3
A Brief History Of Light & Photography: Part 2 Of 3
Easy technique to select, edit and sequence keywords for web
How much should you charge for a photograph?Pennsylvania EMT Smacks Reporter's Camera At House Fire Scene
As a two-story home was going up in flames, a member of an EMT ambulance crew ordered a news videographer away from the scene, smacking the camera in his hand.
The EMT, who has been identified as Tameca VanBergen of the Coudersport Volunteer Ambulance Association, proved she is clueless when it comes to basic First Amendment law.
The incident took place last month in Northern Pennsylvania as Tim Hallman of CoudyNews.com was standing across the street, about two houses down from the raging fire.
Hallman turned his camera on VanBergen as soon as she began ordering him away from the scene. That was when she smacked his camera.
“Don’t touch me,” Hallman says.
“Do not take a picture of me, do not take a picture of me,” she responds.
“I have every right, you’re a public (official) and you’re in public,” he says.
“And I have the right to say no. I’m on duty.”
VanBergen has the right to say no all she wants, but her words have no legal bearing.
But she certainly has no right to smack the videographer’s camera.
Unfortunately, we have reached a point where it has become completely acceptable to smack a camera or photographer if you don't like your photo being taken.
Hallman ends up moving a little closer to the fire, but his video is so shaky it hurts to watch. He blames the shakiness on VanBergen’s smack, claiming she possibly damaged his camera.
As usual with these stories, the comments from readers provide added insight and absurdity to the story.
One clueless commenter stated the following:
she was just doing her job people need to respect them. there keeping you safe and not being hurt. and the people close were probally local residents to the next house or the house burning. you shouldnt be talking crap on this woman for doing her job.
And another one said this:
Appears to me that the young lady controlling access to the incident did her job well. Yes, the media has a job to do- however that’s well down on the list of important things. (just so you know, priorities are saving life, property, evidence, and environment- then mundane things like media). Your reporter was obviously in the way of the responding fire trucks- and when told to move, argued then whined. I have to assume that the first responders have better things to do than argue with a recalcitrant reporter. Lucky, actually, that his interference didn’t appear to cause any harm.
Also lucky that it wasn’t me he was arguing with- I tend to not suffer fools when I’m busy.
God job young lady!
And another commenter said this:
She SHOULDNT be repremended. The camera man shoved the camera in her face, violating her personal space. HE should be repremended. She asked him to remove the video, and he wont, he was to close to the fire scene, putting the fire out is more important than capturing video. Reporters do have the right to capture video and pics, but they dont have the right to get into our first responders face that are only here to help our community. A majority of them are volunteer too.
But the best comment came from a person claiming to be a volunteer firefighter.
I also am a Volunteer for the Fire Dept. That person should not have done what she did to the reporter. He was NOT even close to the house. First the main thing here is that the Smith family is alright. Second the reporter was in the right. Third if any of our people would have done what she did Trust me no questions asked we would no longer be part of that department. To the reporter keep up the good work. To the volunteer our job is to help people not be mean or rude. That reporter was clearly not in anyones way. Dr. Smith Prayers to you and Your Family. God Bless each Firefighter, EMT, Auxillary member that was out there today. Thank You All!!!!
Comments
OMG, she is obviously not concerned with saving any lives or property!!!! He was nowhere near the scene nor was he interfering!
Looks like someone needs to be disciplined and educated!
I hate it when people leaving comments act like they know what they are talking about when they are really clueless!
Same old horseshit, "I'm Mr./Ms authority figure and I can smack your camera and assault you!" If the judges started treating these people the same as anyone else who laid hands on someone this shit would decrease drastically.
I don't think she did anything wrong. That is a natural reaction one somebody invades your personal space.
Bart, natural reaction or not, it was inappropriate.
Natural reaction if you are a control freak on a power trip. The great outdoors is not anybody's personal space.
Bart.. I don't like what you said... virtual slap in the face. LOL!
So Bart since she walked up on him because he was across the street and belted her, that by your reasonings of personal space would be OK?
Bart, come on man, your comment just really seems like a complete troll.
No, she didn't get right up in his face, if she did he pushed her away I would have no problem with that. He flung the camera very close to her. I guess it depends on how close he came to her. If he wasn't that close than she shouldn't have slapped it but if it was close to her face that is a natural reaction, as I already said.
For the record I think she should have left him alone and let him film from where he was unless she thought he was going to be in the way of the other firemen who were still responding.
Oh and one more thing, I would never troll, I like you guys too much and enjoy our civilized debates.
and my "natural" reaction is to kill someone who hits me. ok are we even cop licker
That is not what a reasonable person would do and that usually is the standard, what a reasonable person would do. A reasonable person would push a camera away if somebody shoved it in their face. A reasonable person would not kill them.
I bet not a single people "invades your personal space" if you stay home.
Perhaps you might be right, if the photographer had invaded her personal space. Of course, everyone's space is different, and the personal space of a woman from Iraq is a lot different from the personal space of a man from Seattle.
But NOBODY can legitimately claim the edge of their personal space is 120+ feet away, across a street. The woman you're defending had to cross a street and move two house lots down from where the fire was to get within conversational range of the photographer. Then she had to invade his personal space to touch the camera.
I said she shouldn't have confronted him unless there was good reason but she did not get all up in his face are anything. She walked over and told him to move, that really isn't getting into somebody's personal space. Just because she walked over to him doesn't mean he can invade her personal space if in fact that is what he did.
You claim to not troll, as you troll.
You blatantly disregard the fact that she smacked the camera. Which is illegal.
So troll away JLaw, I mean Bart Sock puppet.
Ex FF here. He is nowhere near the scene. EMT is totally in the wrong for striking him.
cant message her on FB...too bad
This is quite simple:
- Videographers is filming in non-concealed fashion far from the fire.
- EMT quickly approaches videographer yelling at him.
- Videographer turns camera to face women who is yelling and coming up on him at moderate pace, at a minimum. SHE created the proximity she wanted to then "defend" herself from, his "putting the camera in her face". She put the camera in her face when SHE approached him, NOT the opposite.
- She immediately strikes the camera. This is illegal and is battery and attempted criminal damage to property.
- He simply defends himself from her illegal, unconstitutional demands and tells her to not touch or strike him.
She is not a police officer. Her job is as a medical technician. She has NO right to put herself in the position of crowd control, period.
As she's likely "connected" to the police and likely employed by the city, nothing will happen to her, sadly. Had he done the same to her, he'd be in jail.
Notliberal
Active fireman here, and she was out of line.
It's not her scene, it's an FD scene.
He kept a very respectable distance from the fire, on the other side of the street, well away from the road and the responding apparatus. I have no problem with that.
He didn't invade her personal space. He was shooting the fire. He turned to talk to her. The camera turned with him. She didn't like that. She was exactly as close as she chose to place herself to him; he didn't move, he just turned.
He did everything right.
If you don't want to be photographed at work, don't work in the public services.
There's one thing we don't know for sure: why was she moving him in the first place? Some of you need to think a little harder about that before passing judgement on her. The video starts too late. She moved him down the road *closer* to the fire, remember. From the sound of the reversing horn at the start of the video, I suspect her bus was just out of shot at the start of the video, reversing, and he was blocking it and standing in a dangerous position. In which case she was entitled to order him to move without negotiation and immediately.
She wasn't entitled to be a 'you can't photograph me!' asshole or strike his camera!
Mike
Mike,
All your supposition at the end is all over shadowed because she acted improperly. And it is indeed suposition.
If we make an assumption for a moment that your supposition is remotely accurate. Many (most?) people don't respond well to orders especially coming from someone you don't feel has the right to make them. The entire dynamic would have changed with a statement along this line "I need you to move so we can get our bus in here". Boom done, few people want to prevent other people from getting help. But no, her concern is him recording and her assault on him.
Given what she appeared to be concerned about I am prepared to dismiss the supposition as speculative at BEST. She ALONE escalated this in addition to assaulting the photographer.
Your assessment at the beginning of your post is a very good explanation and clearly spells out who was in the wrong.
I have spoken with my brother who is an EMT on the topic of photographers rights and photograph is a non issue for him.
I had this argument with my housemate when explaining this spate of recent issues. His response? "If someone is filming me and I tell them to stop and they don't I'm going to smack them out."
An hour later, I gave up trying to explain why he can't do that.
You could always respond with "it won't be the photographer who goes to jail or potentially pays for a new camera, it'll be you, mate"..
You can also go down the path that if the photog is carrying a weapon and it even looks like your mate might be going for a weapon they photog can use the "fear for my life" defense and take him down.
Somehow it makes much more sense to call the cops and then get told they aren't going to do anything because the photog has broken no laws, and that pistol in the holster, he has a permit to carry.
Your housemate sounds like a talker not a doer, he can talk tough but won't do anything physical..
Good day..
Maybe your housemate and others like him should formulate their philosophy as "Your right to film ends where photons bouncing off my body begin." Such a statement brings the absurdity of their position into sharp focus, but at least it's accurate.
Exactly this. If they can look at you with their Mark One Eyeballs and not be invading your privacy, they can almost certainly use a camera in the same circumstances, with exactly the same level of privacy invasion: None whatsoever.
Now, I can just imagine how fast someone who "smacks out" anyone who looks in their direction will end up committed to a psych ward for life...
"Quit bouncing your photons into my camera or I will have you arrested!"
Fire her, revoke her license, and black list her forever.
Firing her might prove a little tricky because she's a volunteer; she doesn't get paid to do this...
Mike
And unless she's convicted of a felony over this incident, she won't lose her EMT certification either. And maybe not even then.
Turns out she is paid staff. There tend to be a few on most volunteer groups.
- She can be fired
- She should be fired
- She will not lose her license for this, but I expect her to be blacklisted.
Has she, an official with that department, or attorney/spokeshole responded publicly yet?
Typical "I work for the government, therefore you must do as I say" B***S***.
She doesn't work for the government, she's a volunteer. She doesn't get paid for doing this.
It's not her scene as I pointed out, but if a first responder tells you to move so they can reverse their ambulance at an emergency scene without running you over, it's wise to do exactly that!
This does NOT excuse her behaviour of course.
Mike
Mike, "her scene" depends a lot on state law and if the ambulance is part of the fire department or a separate organization.
I'll grant you that. But usually the agency having command depends on the nature of the emergency.
If it's a crime scene, PD is control.
If it's a fire or other emergency, FD will be in charge.
If it's an injury or illness or other medical emergency, the senior EMT calls the shots.
This was a fire.
Unless there was, coincidentally, another unrelated medical emergency across the street, where the video was being shot, I can't imagine it being 'her scene' in any way!
Mike
Here is a different fire department story. In 2000 I was a staff photographer at the daily paper in Hobbs, New Mexico. Not long after I started working there I was sent to photograph a fire. When the photo ran the next day the fire chief called me at the paper and told me how much they liked my photo. Each time after that when I went to shoot a fire, the FD was very helpful and many times I was only a couple feet from them. Two other times they even offered to let me photograph from the elevated lift which was very exciting to see a fire from 60 feet above.
I've always have had a great deal of respect for all the firefighters I've known, although I can't say that about some of the police officers I've had contact with. They both are public servers but their attitude are so very different.
That is a truly awesome picture.
Thank you very much, the Hobbs firefighters were a true joy to work with! If all the pubic servants were like them there would be very little need for "Photography is Not a Crime".
That's because of the different types of people they deal with.
That's a great picture but if those were cops people would be saying why does it take three cops to spray water.
Thank you. There's so much water thrust coming out of that hose, not even the biggest and strongest cop could hold it down. The firefighter in the rear is the chief and he is conferring with the two holding the hose.
Thank you. There's so much water thrust coming out of that hose, not even the biggest and strongest cop could hold it down. The firefighter in the rear is the chief and he is conferring with the two holding the hose.
I know it takes more than one to hold it. Nobody would ever say anything bad about three firemen working a hose.
It can also take more than one cop to arrest somebody. If there are three cops fighting with somebody they will cry that it took three cops to handcuff one guy.
I was just making a point how the two are perceived differently.
That's because of the different types of people they deal with.
That's a great picture but if those were cops people would be saying why does it take three cops to spray water.
Again you put a uniform on somebody and they assume power they dont have.Just fear the uniform.Then they cry need more training give me more money.If training is the issue then go to the source of the initial training and correct it there and if they dont learn then they are liable for damages and they learn at their expense not the taxpayer.My God there is enough training here on this site just to show them the wrong way to approach people doing lawful acts.But what can we expect from brainwashed organazations funded with our money.
Do you fear my uniform, Joe?
Do you believe I or my fire department are 'brainwashed'?
We're just a bunch of guys & girls who believe in serving our community. Quite a few are both members of the FD, and volunteer EMTs in the ambulance corps. We do it because we love it, and because it's one way we can make a difference in peoples lives. We don't get paid for it, we're volunteers.
Just like the woman in the video.
Yes, she was out of line, way out of line. At least she was doing it at an emergency scene, in the heat of the moment.
You're sitting comfortable behind your keyboard being a jerk, an insulting feeble-minded jerk, and neither she nor I deserve this shit from you.
Mike
Does anyone notice that when someone that defends these abusive idiots can't spell? Maybe it's because they can't read either. Read things like the Constitution and the law. People that can't spell don't read much either. That's why they can't spell.
Seems like an over zealous volunteer. She had no legal right or authority to touch the reporter or his equipment. I’m a police officer who is utter shocked at the behavior of other officers which I have seen on this web site. The area in which I work the volunteer fire fighters are often at odds with the police and attempt to unlawfully take control pedestrians and motorist, yes there has been several of them arrest for it as well.
I agree with your first two sentences of course.
As for the rest.... your chief and the FD chief really need to get together and sort this situation out, it's doing neither organization any good.
I don't know how the law is in your jurisdiction, but typically the FD has control of an emergency scene. The role of the PD is to support and assist the FD in implementing this. If the FD decide a street needs to be closed, it gets closed. If they decide civilians need to be excluded from an area, it gets taped off and enforced.
Just like you do with a crime scene, where your agency is in control.
That wouldn't be unlawful in my jurisdiction, in fact it would be unlawful for the PD or anyone else to interfere with FD operations. In practice, you should play nice and work together - unified command!
I've heard of similar situations in other areas; if the Chiefs get together with goodwill and work to sort this out, and then pass those agreements down to the rank and file, it can be fixed. Otherwise egos and history and personalities get in the way.
Mike
Are you saying if the FD tells a cop to remove somebody from a scene because they are taking pictures the cop has to do it?
An FD shouldn't remove anyone from a scene 'because they are taking pictures'. They may remove civilians because they're too close, because there's a hazard they're not aware of, because they're expecting apparatus to arrive and don't want an accident, any number of reasons - irrespective of whether or not they're taking photographs.
Cops and firemen are both in paramilitary service but they're NOT in the same chain of command, so a fireman can't give a cop a direct binding order, AFAIK - technically a fire officer should ask the ranking cop on duty to task one of their people to do whatever they need doing; the police Chief gives the orders to cops, not the fire Chief, because they're different chains of command. In practice cops and firemen usually work very well together and things can be more informal.
Mike
The problem in the area I work is not with the professional FD but with the VFD. The professional FD, know their role and when they see an issue ask the police to handle it, the VFD take matter into their own hands, and even try to restrict the police in doing their jobs, as well as physically confronting citizens. Which is what appears to be the case in this video. Mike please don't take my comments as being that all firefighters behave this way they don't nor do all police behave like the idiots and bullies depicted in the stories and videos that appear on this site, thankfully.
My camera was a gift from my father (for my High School graduation); My father was a photographer, and firmly believed that everyone should own a camera. He gave me a very nice one, and if it were broken, I would not be able to replace it on my income.
Given the monetary value of it, to say nothing of the sentimental value, anyone trying to steal it from me or smash it is committing a felony. I live in a civilized society, which recognizes both the right to self-defense, and recognizes citizen's arrest for felonies and breach-of-peace misdemeanors.
My reaction, were such a thing to occur where I live? I'd use a measured amount of force to defend myself against her assault & battery (I learned Aikido as a kid to defend myself against bullies, and it works equally well on the adult variety), then place her under arrest.
Post new comment