Disrespectful Storm Chasers

[Matt Tottle]

Actually the media is on private property all the time, I can vouch for that. It's just the degree of which they do it. Just as an example, how many times have you seen reports attempt to get an interview at someones front door. Lots, usually they are denied, many times they get an interview. How many shooting stories have you seen taken from parking lots of malls, etc. How many "undercover" news stories have you seen. Sure...some of these reports are horribly disrespectful, some are helpful, but they do enter private property and more. But the point still stands...we should be doing it better. We certainly don't want to follow the mainstream media. The media folks here I believe show that restraint and do operate better...it's kinda just one of those Chaser Code things as it has been said over and over again.

"Front door interviews" are a different situation, because they are directly trying to interview (albeit by ambush) the property owner or a person living there. By giving the interview the owner is implying permission to stand there and tape it. If the owner says no, they have to leave immediately or else the owner can press charges. They can't camp out on the porch and wait for the person to come back out. But nothing stops them from doing the live stand-up from the sidewalk in front of the house.

Malls (or any other business) are not subject to the same trespassing laws, because they are business establishments, which are "generally public" property. Anyone is allowed there during operating hours unless they have been specifically barred/banned from the premises for cause. If the property owner or his representative tells them to stop filming on their property, they must comply.

Undercover stories are a whole different animal, because the cameraman/reporter is on the property with permission. Of course this permission was given based on a lie, but it was given. This type of reporting is the basis of those proposed laws in Florida and Iowa that was the subject of the other thread.

None of these situations are related to a random photographer wandering around private property snapping away without permission. That is still illegal.

 

[Keith Turner]

I learned in the fire service to pick your battles. I think calling this a tiny issue is showing no reguard for peoples privacy. All I can think of is if my house was destroyed, whether i was in it at the time or not, and someone just barged onto my property and started taking pictures of my stuff then I would be very angry. You have a zoom on your camera, keep your butt in the street. This kind of action will get you shot at in some parts of the country. One persons actions reflect ALL of us. Lets keep it professional and respectful. Disrespecting peoples property is an issue that needs to be addressed. On a lighter note I respect the person responsible for being a man about it and apologizing.

 

[Drew.Gardonia]

Nobody is saying or even implying that you shouldn't take pictures and document the damage. The point you are missing is that you have no right to trespass onto private property in order to do so. There is no "tornado aftermath photography" clause in the trespassing laws. You can take pictures of whatever you want from the roadway or sidewalk. If you can see it from there, you can legally photograph it. But as soon as you set foot onto someone's lawn or driveway, unless you have explicit permission from the PROPERTY OWNER (no one else, including police or incident command has any right to give you permission) you are trespassing, and if the property owner chooses to have you arrested, they have every right to.

You mentioned a few pages ago 'that media does it all the time'. They absolutely do not go on private property, they take their footage from the road. If their journalists/camera crew trespass, it opens up the network to major liability. Bottom line is if you want to go onto someone's property to take pictures, you have to ask THEM for permission. You can't just traipse around someone's yard snapping or filming. Aside from being illegal it is incredibly rude and uncouth.

I'm not missing any point Matt.

My point is

1.) it does happen whether you all think it does or not.
2.) during the Boro tornado, I snapped away, walked through rubble, and yards and not one word was said to me. Not one gun was pulled on me, not one person, cop, resident, bystander accosted me.
3.) the media does it whether you want to believe that or not, but I'm so glad you speak for what they do or don't do.

and it's really pretty much a small issue we're arguing about here and I'm done in this thread, because it's got to be the STUPIDEST thread ever started on this Forum.

 

[J Allen]

Sorry, have to correct there, pet peeve. MOST STUPID. If your going to mock you should at least use English to do so.

It doesn't matter if you can do it, and it is done. So is murder, but you don't hear people bragging about that do you (insert any other reprehensible behavior)?

Have the decency not to trespass, or if you want to take pictures on private land just take the 5 seconds out of your life to ask permission, if you explain your motives then people will probably be reasonable. Because it might not have happened yet, but imagine the clamour you would kick up if you did happen to get shot intruding on someone's private land? You would have no recourse but you would probably start up a thread on here whinging that your expression had been curtailed, if you got lucky enough to live. For a point of view, imagine someone walking into you backyard with a 70-200 and snapping you through your windows in your day to day life. Its not stupid, its showing a modicum of respect. I'd have to say I would probably deck you (translation knock you out) if it was my house (guns aren't legal in Australia to protect ones property), but if you asked me I'd probably understand (and would want a copy).

It speaks badly of chasers in general, just take the simple step and people won't annoy you. No need to make it personal regarding chasing experience or whatever, its the behaviour that people object to.

 

[Jeremy Den Hartog]

I'm not missing any point Matt.

My point is

1.) it does happen whether you all think it does or not.
2.) during the Boro tornado, I snapped away, walked through rubble, and yards and not one word was said to me. Not one gun was pulled on me, not one person, cop, resident, bystander accosted me.
3.) the media does it whether you want to believe that or not, but I'm so glad you speak for what they do or don't do.

and it's really pretty much a small issue we're arguing about here and I'm done in this thread, because it's got to be the STUPIDEST thread ever started on this Forum.

Just because you get away with it once or even 100 times does not make it right. As others have said, it reflects poorly on ALL storm chasers. I've heard people refer to storm chasers as 'media whores' (hopefully using this word doesn't cross a line here - simply trying to make a point), if this is how we act at a damage scene aren't we making these people right (at least to an extent)?

...and the last line on your response pretty much summarizes your maturity level - thanks for that.

 

[Marcus Hicks]

Ok enough is enough! Not one time was I approached me to advise me the owner was 1) Still on the scene. 2) that there was a problem with my being there. I did ask! I didn't get out of the car with my camera. I got it after I asked! The photos were not public until J. Trublood lifted them from a locked down FB page and reposted in the public domain for the purpose of fueling this. He was asked to remove them which has not been done yet (as of this post). This entire thread is based on speculation and falsehoods. Look at the title of the thread! It was done to stir up the hornets just like a lightbar thread. You see a chaser doing something you percieve as wrong. Confront them there on the spot as soon as you see it. Oh and guess what THERE WAS NO Command Post! I can tell you where it was supposed to be. I can even tell you why it wasn't there and why it took almost 2 full hours after the fact to finally get established. How do I know? Because I checked in! I knew about the Pocahontas firetruck being hit too because I was at that FD because the CP was not yet established. There is way more to this story than just this one stop. But then again you guys don't really care about that. Not dramatic enough, and doesn't fit the intention of this thread. Jeremy, no hard feelings between us. It's all good.

I am done with this thread though, call me or continue the emails but this thread is going nowhere fast because it does not include all the facts and continually gets added on with those facts removed or ignored!

 

[Jeremy Den Hartog]

Ok enough is enough! Not one time was I approached me to advise me the owner was 1) Still on the scene. 2) that there was a problem with my being there. I did ask! I didn't get out of the car with my camera. I got it after I asked! The photos were not public until J. Trublood lifted them from a locked down FB page and reposted in the public domain for the purpose of fueling this. He was asked to remove them which has not been done yet (as of this post). This entire thread is based on speculation and falsehoods. Look at the title of the thread! It was done to stir up the hornets just like a lightbar thread. You see a chaser doing something you percieve as wrong. Confront them there on the spot as soon as you see it. Oh and guess what THERE WAS NO Command Post! I can tell you where it was supposed to be. I can even tell you why it wasn't there and why it took almost 2 full hours after the fact to finally get established. How do I know? Because I checked in! I knew about the Pocahontas firetruck being hit too because I was at that FD because the CP was not yet established. There is way more to this story than just this one stop. But then again you guys don't really care about that. Not dramatic enough, and doesn't fit the intention of this thread. Jeremy, no hard feelings between us. It's all good.

I am done with this thread though, call me or continue the emails but this thread is going nowhere fast because it does not include all the facts and continually gets added on with those facts removed or ignored!

Marcus, I'm really sorry this thread got to the point of where it is. Looking back, I should have confronted on scene and just been done with it. That was my mistake in this situation. Lesson learned on both fronts here. I was pissed when I made the post originally (usually not a good idea) and assumed we would never actually find out who the person was who took the pics, etc. In fact, when I made the post I really didn't care. Again, I just wanted it known that it seemed very unprofessional. As it turns out, you put more effort into getting permission and being responsible then I realized - something I should have assumed but again my emotion had gotten the best of me and I made a post accusing someone when I didn't have all the facts myself - again a mistake on my part.

If nothing else though, hopefully someone out there has learned something about what to do and what not to do when confronted with these kinds of situations.

I 'think' most of the posts that have been added as of late are more general things and not necessarily directed at you or this particular situation.

 

[Skip Talbot]

Thanks for your replies Marcus and Jeremy, and for keeping a heated thread (mostly) civil. I think your last points would make a nice conclusion to this thread. Everyone has gotten a chance to chime in with their points (at least a few times) and some of the last few replies are getting pretty borderline, so we're going to go ahead and close this thread down. Thanks everyone!