Disrespectful Storm Chasers

[Sean Ramsey]

There are several tentacles that have grown out of this thread.

First - Jeremy saw something that he felt violated an unwritten code of ethics and posted it to be seen in order to get some resolution. (Granted, it could have been worded much better). Marcus identified himself as the person in question and cleared it up. The only thing I can see wrong with this was the accusatory tone that was set in the beginning.

Second - We live in the age of information, EVERYTHING is recorded these days and out to the world in a matter of minutes regardless of who's in it or what permissions are given. You have to be respectful of the circumstances, but to think no one should or would take photos of damaged property after an extraordinary occurance (without permission) is probably something they may want to rethink due to the nature of the times we live in.

Third - I think chasers being on the scene is more of a good thing than bad, if only for people knowing that there is someone there for them until EMS help arrives. I couldn't imagine my home or neighborhood getting obliterated and watching cars drive by with video cameras sticking out of the door with no one stopping.

 

[Steve Miller]

I agree with you 100% here. All 4 of us chasing that day are first aid/CPR certified and my wife will likely be taking 'first responder' training this fall. In fact, this is why the homeowner was with us in our vehicle. My wife had taken his vital signs tended to injuries, etc with the first aid kit we had with us.

Yeah, we have been in the situation before and at that time, I was very unprepared. I felt helpless and like a waste of space, even though we were trying to help. That was my catalyst to get prepared. I can't say I'm attracted to disaster areas but can say if I am in the future, I'll at least have some basics with which to help.

Glad you re-read my post. I really am being general with my comments. Promise!

 

[joe.miller]

I'll address this as my home was hit on 5/10/10 by a satellite to the F4 that affected east Moore and did damage all the way to Choctaw. I was chasing, my wife was home and took shelter. She said within minutes of being hit, there were people everywhere willing to help. People who were not our neighbors. We live in a private gated community; concerned individuals made it a point to get in and ensure residents are okay. It's called being a good samaritan.

After the event we had a lot of people driving by snapping pictures. Oddly enough, I didn't mind it all that much. They didn't have a right to do it as our neighborhood is 100% private property, even the roads. Still though, it was not personal, it's property; property that would be fixed and back to new with time.

If you are a chaser, you are a also potentially a first responder to not only storm victims, but your chase partner(s). You should be responsible and carry a first aid kit and take a yearly CPR course.

Thanks Steve for this comment!

I know Marcus Hicks personally and have a good knowledge of his Fire/Rescue background and also his knowledge of Chain Of Command. I assure you that he did seek proper permission by seeking permission from IC (Incident Command). What IC says - goes no matter what even if the property owner would have a problem with it! If you are having a hard time understanding the power that IC has here is a first hand example of how I've seen IC's power being displayed - Our fire Chief had us knock out a patrol car's front driver and passenger windows to route a fire hose through it over 2 years ago. At that point the officer was pissed off but there was nothing he could say/do about it. The only option he had was to wait until we packed up and left to get back to his car.

 

[Mike Boik]

After reading this thread. I see two sides to this how people view it. Some people have the compassion to respect the victims and restrict themselves from photographing private property. Others however do this. Whether or not they are storm chasers I've witnessed people walking onto private property snapping pictures and video. This is a problem that has ALWAYS been around. There are definitely two ways people can look at this. If you want to do things "right"... yes you ask for permission onto their property etc. However this is does not always happen. If you don't do it someone else will. there are people out there that will do it even if you don't nor have the interest to.

Finally in conclusion, I respect how this can upset one person. I find it ignorant myself. Marcus be sure i am not disrespecting you at all. You said you took steps to do what you felt was correct. I believe you. However, this is something that has been happening. In my own opinion it's disrespectful, but I doubt this can be stopped.

If you stop at a destroyed town/city from a significant event. If you help people please be aware of the legal concerns that can fall back on you helping people during search and rescue. Being first aid trained(to my knowledge) is nice, but unless you are on the clock I do not believe this can prevent you from having any turn of recourse.

Unrelated tidbit i wanted to add:

finally, I filmed the tornado from the north side of the hook. we watched this tornado go right into Mapleton. None of us are trained in any matter to help people so we kept going. We entered the north side of town and what we saw was debris from trees and minor structural damage. We continued east to continue chasing. We were not informed until later how bad the town was hit. It's a sad deal to watch a town get hit.

 

[Dan Robinson]

What IC says - goes no matter what even if the property owner would have a problem with it!

If this is true that authority extends to permitting an anonymous photographer onto the property to photograph the building interior and personal belongings, it won't exempt both the IC and the photographer from subsequent trouble should the property owner choose to pursue it.

 

[Keith Hosman]

If you stop at a destroyed town/city from a significant event. If you help people please be aware of the legal concerns that can fall back on you helping people during search and rescue. Being first aid trained(to my knowledge) is nice, but unless you are on the clock I do not believe this can prevent you from having any turn of recourse.

Actually, the "good samaritan law" will cover anyone who stops to render assistance provided that they do not go above and beyond their level of training and skill and you do no further harm.

For example someone has a cut, you can clean it and put a bandage on it w/o having to worry about being sued. If you however find someone trapped under wreckage and all they have is a minor cut, and you take it upon yourself to try to extract them from under the debris and in the proccess break their arm/leg/collar bone etc. then they can sue you because you caused further injury for something that could have waited for skilled rescuers to arrive.

The key is to have at least basic first aid/cpr training. The training isn't all that expensive, can be done in a single day, and could exponentially help many.

I carry a full "crash kit" including the ability to start IVs (I do not carry IV meds) including splinting materials and cribbing, but I am trained and qualified top use them.

The most important thing when stopping to assist someone is first to identify yourself, your level of training, and then ask if they need any assistance. They have the right to refuse, if they do so, you can go on your way with a clear conscience. Regardless of if they are willing to accept treatment or not, you should always notify the authorities by calling 911.

 

[Matt Tottle]

If you stop at a destroyed town/city from a significant event. If you help people please be aware of the legal concerns that can fall back on you helping people during search and rescue. Being first aid trained(to my knowledge) is nice, but unless you are on the clock I do not believe this can prevent you from having any turn of recourse.

Most states do have Good Samaritan laws that offer a degree of protection in these cases. Some even have 'duty to aid' laws which make it illegal to do nothing. However, they all require that you not exceed your capabilities (if you are trained in first aid and CPR, there's no excuse for you to be cutting open someone's chest), not be reckless (if you paralyze someone by moving them even though they are not in imminent danger, it's on you), and not try to treat someone against their will (that's assault).

 

[Keith Hosman]

Thanks Steve for this comment!

I know Marcus Hicks personally and have a good knowledge of his Fire/Rescue background and also his knowledge of Chain Of Command. I assure you that he did seek proper permission by seeking permission from IC (Incident Command). What IC says - goes no matter what even if the property owner would have a problem with it! If you are having a hard time understanding the power that IC has here is a first hand example of how I've seen IC's power being displayed - Our fire Chief had us knock out a patrol car's front driver and passenger windows to route a fire hose through it over 2 years ago. At that point the officer was pissed off but there was nothing he could say/do about it. The only option he had was to wait until we packed up and left to get back to his car.

Actually the IC has no right to give permission to enter private property to take pictures. In my job as EMA even I have to get permission when doing damage assessment to take pictures on private property.

 

[Jesse Risley]

Most states do have Good Samaritan laws that offer a degree of protection in these cases. Some even have 'duty to aid' laws which make it illegal to do nothing. However, they all require that you not exceed your capabilities (if you are trained in first aid and CPR, there's no excuse for you to be cutting open someone's chest), not be reckless (if you paralyze someone by moving them even though they are not in imminent danger, it's on you), and not try to treat someone against their will (that's assault).

This sounds to me like a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" type of moral conundrum. I can understand not wanting to make the situation worse by exceeding your capabilities and, for example, causing permanent paralysis by moving someone. However, with the failure to stop and render aid laws in some states, it almost sounds like you could be found either criminally or civilly liable if you come upon a scene with injured people, are paranoid about being sued for causing more harm to the person, refuse to help until legitimate first responders arrive for that reason only, and somehow your failure to help is perceived (whether wrongly or not) as a possible contributing factor to the person's death (i.e., not wanting to help lift debris off of a crushed person). The circumstances are different in every case, but I see no reason why a judge couldn't interpret the statute to apply in a situation like that and thereby set some sort of a legal precedent, so I fully understand why some spotters and chasers who are not first responders absolutely go out of their way to avoid the damage scenes where personal injuries are likely to have occurred.

 

[Jason Boggs]

Whoever opened the thread back up, thank you!

I do want to point out that if/when you ask for permission to photograph on someone's property, don't have all your equipment with you. Walk up, shake their hand and ask if there is anything they need, and find out if they're ok. After a few minutes of talking, then politely ask for permission to film. Don't over stay your welcome.

I like to document all things weather, including damage, but I always try to go about it the right way.

 

[rdale]

What IC says - goes no matter what even if the property owner would have a problem with it! If you are having a hard time understanding the power that IC has here is a first hand example of how I've seen IC's power being displayed - Our fire Chief had us knock out a patrol car's front driver and passenger windows to route a fire hose through it over 2 years ago. At that point the officer was pissed off but there was nothing he could say/do about it. The only option he had was to wait until we packed up and left to get back to his car.

Yes the IC has power... Does he have the ability to disregard the owner's rights and let some guy off the street walk around his property? No way...

 

[Matt Tottle]

I know Marcus Hicks personally and have a good knowledge of his Fire/Rescue background and also his knowledge of Chain Of Command. I assure you that he did seek proper permission by seeking permission from IC (Incident Command). What IC says - goes no matter what even if the property owner would have a problem with it! If you are having a hard time understanding the power that IC has here is a first hand example of how I've seen IC's power being displayed - Our fire Chief had us knock out a patrol car's front driver and passenger windows to route a fire hose through it over 2 years ago. At that point the officer was pissed off but there was nothing he could say/do about it. The only option he had was to wait until we packed up and left to get back to his car.

These two incidents could not be more different. Knocking out the windows of a patrol car because the officer was dumb enough to park in front of a hydrant (I have friends in FD, they only do that to send a message: DON'T PARK IN FRONT OF THE HYDRANT, MORON!), and a chaser who wants pictures are two completely opposite ends of the spectrum.

IC does not have the authority to allow anyone not involved in the situation onto private property. If he was there offering to help, that's one thing. But if his help wasn't needed, he sure as hell didn't have implied permission to go wandering around the property snapping pictures. The road is public property, and you can snap to your heart's content from there. But you NEVER go onto private property without express permission from the owner. IC knew full well the owner was right there, and should've directed Marcus to go ask permission.

 

[Matt Tottle]

This sounds to me like a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" type of moral conundrum. I can understand not wanting to make the situation worse by exceeding your capabilities and, for example, causing permanent paralysis by moving someone. However, with the failure to stop and render aid laws in some states, it almost sounds like you could be found either criminally or civilly liable if you come upon a scene with injured people, are paranoid about being sued for causing more harm to the person, refuse to help until legitimate first responders arrive for that reason only, and somehow your failure to help is perceived (whether wrongly or not) as a possible contributing factor to the person's death (i.e., not wanting to help lift debris off of a crushed person). The circumstances are different in every case, but I see no reason why a judge couldn't interpret the statute to apply in a situation like that and thereby set some sort of a legal precedent, so I fully understand why some spotters and chasers who are not first responders absolutely go out of their way to avoid the damage scenes where personal injuries are likely to have occurred.

Something as simple as calling 911 or comforting the person and giving them water and a blanket until EMS/SAR arrives would be seen as rendering aid in those situations. The laws were designed to not conflict with each other, and their main purpose is to assure people that it is their duty as a human to help others in need and that they won't be punished for doing their duty. They realize that most people aren't trained for disaster rescue, but you should do what you can.

 

[Paul Hadfield]

I'm not going to say what anyone should or shouldn't do with respect to filming other people's property. Personally I like to avoid having anything too discernible in a shot just because if I were to be so lucky as to sell that shot and not have obtained proper licensing, I would rather not risk any liability issue. Having said that, I have taken pictures of people's damaged property and harmless as it may have been, I later learned that after publishing the images online, insurance firms took interest in my pictures and referenced them without my knowledge, consent or without any compensation to me. Whether it was to assist a claim or what, I do not know but voluntarily publishing my ground truth online made someone's paid job all that more easy. I only learned of this after being "thanked" by someone for my "service to the community" when I was merely documenting a significant weather event. The point is, not everyone views your material for the purpose of general entertainment. In the matter of publishing images of identifiable private property either as permitted or not, it's good practice to try and view what you are doing in third person and censor that which could infringe on the owner's rights as well as yours.

 

[Greg Higgins]

The "Duty to Act" clause is aimed at "professional" and volunteer responders that meet specified state training requirements. It is not aimed at the lay public that has an ARC or AHA card.