RoosterCantrell
Goodbye :)
+399|6667|Somewhere else

Well, it was in his legal right.

But it was sooooooooooo Morally wrong.  Scumbag.  What's worse is people E-mail those pics to the parents.  WTF? WHY?!

I don't see why there can't be a law that, while those pictures were taken for the investigation, there should be some kind of Law that covers a dead person's dignity.  LEaving those pictures under an umbrella where mere possesion is like having child porn on your computer.  Is that too much to ask?  I don't think it would be a censoring of the first amendment unreasonably really.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6716|Global Command
They were getting the photos emailed to them.
Commentary included " what a waste of a porsche ".


The guy who leaked them is a dispatcher.

Somebody please tell me what a dispatcher does regarding research.


No, this so far still employed douchebag did this for kicks.

As far as monetary punishment, that comes out of the tax payers wallet, but I'd say the family deserves it. I'm not kidding when I say I hope he receives capital retribution.
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6889|Little Rock, Arkansas

SgtSlauther wrote:

pls GTFO of my internets
No.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

fuck that.  Go protest a funeral.


I know a police officer who loved to show everyone in the unit pictures off of his laptop from accidents he had to respond too.  I think thats an asshole, immoral thing to do.
I would never protest a funeral, and I find those that do to be as morally distasteful as they come. Morally distasteful does NOT mean illegal. Immoral does NOT mean illegal. I'm a patriot guard member, with at least 25 rides under my belt. And while I disagree with the decision to do morally distasteful things, I still defend the doer's right to free speech.

It's called being a principled libertarian.

ATG wrote:

you probably think we are under taxed as well.
Nope. Think we're overtaxed as hell. Like I said, I'm a principled libertarian. Have both an ACLU and a NRA card. I support ALL the rights in the Constitution, not just the ones that benefit me directly. ATG, you and I agree a hell of a lot more than we disagree.

twiistaaa wrote:

your awfully quick to defend it. twisted fuck much?
Nope. Cop and paramedic. I've seen worse. But I also have an understanding of what goes on behind the scenes. That's what I was trying to explain.

I guess I should have included my moral condemnation of the actions of the dispatcher that put those pics out there. THAT action is inexcusable.

What I wanted to say is that if you really wanted to see them, there's a perfectly legal way to do it. And you could choose to put them on the internet if you were so inclined.

Who you should be really pissed at are the folks that are emailing the grieving parents pictures of their dead child. Why not take your anger out on them?

daddyofdeath wrote:

Yeah blistering fuckface stfu. How can you defend that Police officer?
TOS much?

I'm not going to report you. I'll give you the opportunity to revise your statement. Let me point out some of that TOS for you, in case you've never read it:

Chuy's eminently sensible and not so hard to follow rules, abbreviated wrote:

While using the BF2S.com forums, you WILL:
   1. Respect the site, staff, and members.
   2. Refrain from posting messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or are otherwise of questionable content (if you have to ask, the answer is 'No.')
...
   4. Positively contribute to the forums with useful posts and information relevant to the section being posted under.
...
   15. Never engage in personal attacks. Ever.
To finish up, I'm sorry if I offended someone. That was not my intent. This is a tragedy all the way around.
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6889|Little Rock, Arkansas

RoosterCantrell wrote:

Well, it was in his legal right.

But it was sooooooooooo Morally wrong.  Scumbag.  What's worse is people E-mail those pics to the parents.  WTF? WHY?!

I don't see why there can't be a law that, while those pictures were taken for the investigation, there should be some kind of Law that covers a dead person's dignity.  LEaving those pictures under an umbrella where mere possesion is like having child porn on your computer.  Is that too much to ask?  I don't think it would be a censoring of the first amendment unreasonably really.
I agree that it's morally wrong, yes. I'm with you 100% percent.

But I think that making these pics, distasteful as they are, immune to the FOIA is a bad idea. It's a very dangerous slippery slope. They tried it in FL when Earnhardt died in the Daytona 500 some years back. It didn't hold up.
AussieReaper
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
+5,761|6340|what

Don't hide behind this sites TOS, the same way that heartless police officer is hiding behind the Constitution.
https://i.imgur.com/maVpUMN.png
HurricaИe
Banned
+877|6148|Washington DC

TheAussieReaper wrote:

Don't hide behind this sites TOS, the same way that heartless police officer is hiding behind the Constitution.
...
topthrill05
Member
+125|6765|Rochester NY USA
Hiding behind?

Christ people calm down, this is nowhere near the most disgusting thing to happen to a family. How about the 80 killed in a car bomb today,  8 year olds being sold for sex and that genocide going on in Darfur. While it may seem like I am going in a different direction I hope someone can see my point.

Damn Nyqil.
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6889|Little Rock, Arkansas

topthrill05 wrote:

Hiding behind?

Christ people calm down, this is nowhere near the most disgusting thing to happen to a family. How about the 80 killed in a car bomb today,  8 year olds being sold for sex and that genocide going on in Darfur. While it may seem like I am going in a different direction I hope someone can see my point.

Damn Nyqil.
So I'm apparently not the only one who's not that up in arms about this.

It's a tragedy. Of that there is no doubt.

That being said, it's also a lesson of why it's not a good idea to drive your daddy's porsche 110 miles an hour down the highway.

What would have made this tragedy even worse is if this girl's bad decision had ended with her hitting someone else. She crossed over the median and 2 lanes of oncoming traffic. On HALLOWEEN. Can you imagine the outcome if she'd hit a minivan full of moms and kids?

I guess I'm just getting hardened. I feel terrible for her parents, terrible for her sisters. But her death, while senseless, was of her own making.
Adams_BJ
Russian warship, go fuck yourself
+2,054|6810|Little Bentcock
I don't agree with what he did, but sending them to gaol? WTF? Why should they go to gaol for circulating pictures that maybe they shouldn't have. Make their lives hard but as far as I know they haven't broken any laws.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6317|North Tonawanda, NY
It's amazing how everyone pounced on blisteringsilence for being the voice of reason.  But he is right.  The man's actions were morally repugnant but not illegal, nor should they be.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6716|Global Command

SenorToenails wrote:

It's amazing how everyone pounced on blisteringsilence for being the voice of reason.  But he is right.  The man's actions were morally repugnant but not illegal, nor should they be.
ok butthead, let's see how you feel when it's your loved one all over bangedup.com


jeezuz, now I see how politicians sit there and feed the public horseshit; there are some that will excuse anything ffs.
Stingray24
Proud member of the vast right-wing conspiracy
+1,060|6632|The Land of Scott Walker

ATG wrote:

hey! she's dead. Let's exploit her..


Bastards.
Agreed
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6317|North Tonawanda, NY

ATG wrote:

ok butthead, let's see how you feel when it's your loved one all over bangedup.com


jeezuz, now I see how politicians sit there and feed the public horseshit; there are some that will excuse anything ffs.
Hey ATG.  Re-read my post and quote to me where I said that this sort of thing is morally good.

I don't recall saying anything about how this is excused in any way, shape, or form.  The fact that this was done is disgusting, and I never said anything to the contrary.  But to make this illegal, steps on freedom of speech.
ATG
Banned
+5,233|6716|Global Command
There has to be sane limits.
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6889|Little Rock, Arkansas

ATG wrote:

There has to be sane limits.
See, that's where you and I seperate. The whole point of the freedom of speech part of the first amendment is to protect UNPOPULAR speech. After all, if it's popular, there's no reason to protect it. People WANT to hear it.

“He that would make his own
liberty secure, must guard even his
enemy from oppression, for if he
violates this duty, he establishes a
precedent that will reach to
himself.”
—Thomas Paine
topthrill05
Member
+125|6765|Rochester NY USA
Nothing more needs to be said that wasn't just said in the quote.
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6317|North Tonawanda, NY

ATG wrote:

There has to be sane limits.
There are sane limits.  What you propose would be an insane limit.  That says nothing of the morality of releasing pictures of a mutilated corpse.  I find it disgusting, but I won't be a part of trying to limit free speech.
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6889|Little Rock, Arkansas

rdx-fx wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

ATG wrote:

There has to be sane limits.
See, that's where you and I seperate. The whole point of the freedom of speech part of the first amendment is to protect UNPOPULAR speech. After all, if it's popular, there's no reason to protect it. People WANT to hear it.

“He that would make his own
liberty secure, must guard even his
enemy from oppression, for if he
violates this duty, he establishes a
precedent that will reach to
himself.”
—Thomas Paine
Reread that Thomas Paine quote.  It's basically a reformulation of the Golden Rule : Treat others as you would wish to be treated.  If your daughter were to be gruesomely killed in a car wreck, would you want pictures of that floating around for sick fucks to get a laugh out of?

1st Amendment allows that you could possibly post such pictures.  A properly functioning moral/ethical sense would tell you whether you should post such pictures.  And, the rest of the population still has their freedoms to think whatever they like of someone so morally deficient that they would post such pictures. 

Freedom of Speech doesn't entail Freedom from Responsibility for your Speech


Where is the reasoning behind posting such pictures?
Is there some political injustice exposed by showing such pictures? (ex. Nazi death camp pictures, Saddam's chemical attacks, etc)
Is there some literary or poetic content to the pictures?
Or, is it just posting of a gruesome picture for sick sociopaths to get their rocks off and/or make stupid jokes about?

Personally, if I were a supervisor of those policemen, I'd have to fire them (or at least suspend them):  Lack of proper professional demeanor, lack of ethical reasoning necessary for safe interaction with the public,  and possibly suggest them for psychological evaluation for PTSD and/or sociopathic disorders.

I've had to personally judge that limit here recently.  In a previous thread, it would've been easy for me to post pictures of victims of Saddam's chemical warfare attacks on the Kurds, to make a point in a very sharp manner.  I chose not to for a couple reasons:  1) Too many sick fucks here that'd get off on pictures of real suffering and such  and 2) Too many minor children [regardless of actual age] here, that don't have the mental foundation to properly process such things yet.

Here, 1st Amendment, US Constitution;
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons … endment01/
OK, let's go here.

First off, the Thomas Paine quote has nothing whatsoever to do with the golden rule. I don't know where you get that. If I were to paraphrase it, it would read:

If you are willing to step up to defend what you believe, you should also defend your enemy's right to be heard also, for if you don't, when your opinion falls out of favor, you yourself will have set the precedent by which your opinions are suppressed.

Or you could just say you get your just deserts. Whatever.

Then you go on a rant about morality and ethics. NEITHER OF WHICH HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH LAW.

For the love of God, when are you going to figure out that I don't want these pics floating about anymore than anyone else? They're repugnant, disgusting, reprehensible, terrible, insensitive, (I could find some more adjectives to go here, but hopefull you get the point).

So's the KKK.

But I think that those assholes still have the right to have a parade and spew their nonsense.

Because the laws that give them that right are the same ones that let Dr King lead the black men and women of this country from oppression in the 1950's and 1960's.

We, as a people, MUST protect the right of any crazy asshole to say whatever he wants. We must cherish it. We must embrace it.

What we don't have to do is agree with him. Hell, we should have counter parades and demonstrations to show just how crazy he is.

But there is no better disinfectant to crazy than sunshine. Ask the scientologists.

But I digress.

The point is that you all are laying blame without knowing any specifics. You are casting stones at whatever target hits your fancy. Well, the police took the pictures, so let's blame them.

Lets blame the officer who's making $15 an hour to get cursed at, spat at, and scrape the brains of stupid 18 year old girls off the pavement.

"Personally, if I were a supervisor of those policemen, I'd have to fire them (or at least suspend them):  Lack of proper professional demeanor, lack of ethical reasoning necessary for safe interaction with the public,  and possibly suggest them for psychological evaluation for PTSD and/or sociopathic disorders."

You seem to know an awful lot about what happened from an internet post about the subject. How do you have any idea what their professional demeanor is? Or their ethics? How do you know that they're suffering from PTSD or a sociopathic disorder?

The answer is, you don't. But that's not going to stop you from smearing their names.

Hell, you could work for Fox News. Or Dan Rather.

Let me boil it down to this, for everyone here:

  • This is a terrible tragedy for the family of the girl that died.
  • Regardless of how they got there, people should have more respect for the dead than to post images of them on the internet.
  • We all need to take a deep breath and think before we speak.
  • We all should be sure of our facts before we go on a wild rampage of accusations that borders on Libel.
  • Our legal system is based on a presumption of innocence. Why not offer that to those involved?
  • The freedom to say what you want is precious. It's so precious that we need to be sure what we're saying is really, really important to us if it's going to piss a lot of people off. It should be cherished and protected by all. Especially when it's really unpopular.
KuSTaV
noice
+947|6698|Gold Coast
Ill just say, although the police guy took photos for investigation, fine, but if he freely passed them on to others, then I'd say thats pretty bad. If someone wants to see that stuff, then they should go through archives and the government to access the information, rather than the cops just giving them out.
noice                                                                                                        https://static.bf2s.com/files/user/26774/awsmsanta.png
belldawg
Serial Jay-Walker
+52|6171|Perth, indian ocean
What a fucking joke. Think of the family.
clogar
damn ain't it great to be a laxer
+32|6143|Minnesota
wow that is demented. that made me angry.
Ajax_the_Great1
Dropped on request
+206|6834
Can any of you saying that it's free speech honestly say that you wouldn't care if you had no control over pictures of your family torn to shit.

Well, I'm sure you can say it, what with you being all big and bad over the internet, but if it did happen, we all know how fast your tone would change.
konfusion
mostly afk
+480|6737|CH/BR - in UK

*twitches*

What.The.Fuck?

This is absofuckinglutely ridiculous. First off: who the FUCK would post pictures like this? You have to be either mentally disturbed or an attention whore the the fucking extreme. Second: It is COMMON SENSE not to do something like this. Fucking bullshit about right to privacy only being valid for live people.

Shoot this guy in the fucking balls with sharp rubber pellets... Fuck bullets, that'll hurt more.

-konfusion

edit:
You know what's wrong with the American Law System? Common sense barely comes into play! All you guys do is scrape around the fucking technicalities, and go completely beyond the point of it all, and the morality. I thought the guy who broke into a house sueing the owners was bad. This is absolutely ridiculous.

Please tell me he's been fired?!

Last edited by konfusion (2008-02-18 01:38:29)

Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|6962|Noizyland

That is probably one of the most awful things to happen to a person ever, and I wold think that just on the matter of decency something would be done about it. I couldn't say if it was the officer's fault hat the pictures were given to the website, but those sick places pay people for this sort of material so even if the officer claims that he never meant for the pictures to get out he is still suspicious. Even though pictures of crash/crime scenes are given to the applicable parties and could perceivably be leaked, instead of protecting themselves the invloved parties should be looking at their system and finding out what went wrong in order to stop it. Even if the officer did give the picures to the sites, even if he does manage to scramble together a win at the court house, it is in the public interest for this issue to be solved. Police officers and Highway Patrol officers are meant to be trusted people. How can this be if they are free to be able to pull this twisted stuff?
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
blisteringsilence
I'd rather hunt with Cheney than ride with Kennedy
+83|6889|Little Rock, Arkansas

rdx-fx wrote:

That you do not see the similarity between Paine's quote, your paraphrases, and the Golden Rule is ... astonishing

Here, have some light reading;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity
I am well familiar with the golden rule. It's not been that long since university philosophy. The golden rule implies altruism, and a trust of others. The Paine quote is all about self preservation.


rdx-fx wrote:

The whole point of my explanation (what you consider a "rant") was that even though something is technically legal, does not make it ethical, moral, or tasteful

1st Amendment allows that you could possibly post such pictures.  A properly functioning moral/ethical sense would tell you whether you should post such pictures.  And, the rest of the population still has their freedoms to think whatever they like of someone so morally deficient that they would post such pictures.

Freedom of Speech doesn't entail Freedom from Responsibility for your Speech
I agree.

rdx-fx wrote:

Actually, no we don't have to "protect the right of any crazy asshole to say whatever he wants". 
Shouting "fire" in a crowded movie theater isn't protected speech, threatening another person isn't protected, spreading Top Secret government information is not protected, child porn is not protected, etc..

1st Amendment allows that you could possibly post such pictures.  A properly functioning moral/ethical sense would tell you whether you should post such pictures.  And, the rest of the population still has their freedoms to think whatever they like of someone so morally deficient that they would post such pictures.

Freedom of Speech doesn't entail Freedom from Responsibility for your Speech



And, putting Dr. King on equal footing with someone who posted (for lack of a better term) "death-porn" on the internet?
Are you serious?

One gave his life in the cause of equal treatment, fairness, and non-violent protest.  The other posted photos of a gruesomely mutilated young woman on the internet for amusement.
Point one: posting pics from an accident scene (that are available through legal means)  fails the Brandenburg Test for the restriction of Free Speech.

As long as what you're saying doesn't violate all three tenets of this test, I will defend your right to say it. I likely won't condone it. I will defend it.

Point two: Yep, I am. In 1959, not a white man in Alabama, or Mississippi, or Georgia, or Arkansas, wanted to hear a thing that Dr. King wanted to say. They wanted him shut up. He was "stirring up the coloreds." His speech was considered just as bad as yelling fire in a crowded theater. And those who were there beside him stood up with him and defended his right to say it, in the face of fire hoses, police dogs, teargas, and everything else. They were LITERALLY throwing stones at this man because of what he had to say.

We agree with it now. We did NOT agree with it then. How quickly times change. But I'm not a fan of revisionist history that seeks to portray the actions of white america as honorable and just toward Dr. King. He advocated change for which white america wasn't ready.

Now, I don't agree with the actions of this asshat that posted the pics on the internet. I likely will NEVER agree with his actions. But does that make them any less worth protecting? The answer cannot be no. Too much is at stake. What happens when the next Dr. King comes along? When he has unpopular things to say?

Point three: Dr. King didn't give up his life. His life was callously taken from him. He didn't sacrifice himself. He was gunned down in cold blood. Sorry, I'm a stickler for nuance. It's the difference between conscious choice (the fireman gave his life by running into the burning building to save the last two kids) and actions by others.


rdx-fx wrote:

Without specifics?
hmm..  then I must've just dreamed up the part in the OP where it says "Reich and co-defendant Thomas O'Donnell, who reportedly still works as a CHP dispatcher, cite in court papers their First Amendment rights to free speech in being responsible for the worldwide distribution of the photos through cyberspace."

, or the link in the article that says

"The CHP would not talk on camera but says one of its workers released the pictures. The CHP released the following statement to CBS13.

"The investigation has concluded that there was an unauthorized release of the photos taken.""
My point is that you're making a whole lot of assumptions based on a few lines in TWO web articles. And you know what they say about assumptions.

rdx-fx wrote:

Man, I'm an Army veteran.  Don't try and play the "they have a hard job, they don't get paid enough, you wouldn't understand" card.

I understand venting at stupidity.  I understand wanting to just scream at the senseless waste of life that happens - and that most of the population will never open their eyes to see. 
A little anonymous venting about "some stupid girl" might be okay - posting pictures of her (identifiable?) mutilated corpse on the internet crosses a moral and ethical line.

It might be moral and ethical, if it were to bring attention to something important (drunk driving, genocide, drug use, whatever) - but NOT strictly for amusement.
Again, I agree. But you are assuming (there's that assumption word again) that the police were responsible for the internet posting.

You know how viral the internet is. I send you an email. You send it to 5 friends. They send it to 5 friends each. One of those dudes, who I likely don't even know, takes the pics from the email and places them on a website.

Not to mention, we don't know why the images were originally forwarded. They very well could be part of a VERY graphic portrayal of speed kills.


rdx-fx wrote:

Did I mention them by name? NO
Did I say they HAD PTSD or sociopathic disorders? NO - "suggest them for psychological evaluation" was the phrase I used.  Let a professional decide.
Did I say anything about denying them "due process"? no

Now, who's trying to get a job with Dan Rather or Fox News now?
Point: the presumption of guilt is by itself a denial of due process.
Point: If you print an editorial in a newspaper attacking the person on the front page, you can be sued for libel regardless of whether you mention that person's name directly. If it's obvious who you're referencing (and let's not split hairs here, it's obvious), then you're responsible.
Point: When you summarily fire someone for an action committed for which you have no indication of motive, and which apparently didn't violate your agency's written policies, you are abridging due process. See the first point above.

rdx-fx wrote:

blisteringsilence wrote:

The freedom to say what you want is precious. It's so precious that we need to be sure what we're saying is really, really important to us if it's going to piss a lot of people off. It should be cherished and protected by all. Especially when it's really unpopular.
My point exactly.

Use it wisely, not to post "snuff-smut" on the internet.
I agree.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard