Did anyone see on CNN the camera man taping the car wrecks?

[Sterling]

On the rainy streets of LA. There was one disabled nvehicle.

Instead of calling the police and flaging down motorist approaching the scene he sat and filmed at least 4 cars craching into the disabled vehicle over a span of what had top be at least 30 mins.

If anyone in the LA area has seen this I suggest calling the station to complain. If anyone knows anyone involved in the accident I suggest the call an attorney and sue the shit out of the TV station.

It was the worst example of gross indifference and shirking of civic duty I have seen since Kerry and our Dems gave Bush the right to invade the world.

The CNN douches were smiling and laughing about how they would have just sat there and filmed as well.

If someone I loved had been killed in one of those wrecks there would be hell to pay on the part of the camera man and the station.

[Howardx]

1. "on scene video"

is a private co. that videotapes stuff, mostly at night it seems and sells the footage to the local networks.

[wtmusic]

2. Which station?

need more info

[Sterling]

3. They did not ID the station.

I am on the east coast though I used to live in LA. The accidents looked like they were on one of the roads that scirts the hills. Either in Hollywood or of the 405 possibly.

[JuniperLea]

4. i live in LA and saw this

who is to say they didn't call 911? how would you know that by simply watching the video? of course he is going to keep the video cam rolling! that's the mark of a professional. part of that professional code it to make sure authorities are called.

what was he supposed to do? run out into traffic and put his own life at risk? not to mention the lives of motorists who might have to swerve to miss him! i think he did exactly the right thing and i am betting the authorities were called. there is absolutely no evidence to suggest otherwise.

i see nothing wrong with the video. had a loved one of mine been injured in that accident, i would be grateful for the film footage and knowing exactly what happened.

[Sterling]

5. Yes I am sure you would have prefered

To have footage of your dead loved ones death than to have had the cameraman prevent the accident, :eyes:.

I don't know maybe it's an LA thing? But people in most places would have not been too scared or self absorbed to flag down motorists approaching the scene.

If you truly saw the footage you would understand that the vehicle posed a far greater threat than a person standing on the side of the road flagging people down. No this douche bag wanted to impress his boss by getting some blood on film. He deserves to be prosecuted.

[JuniperLea]

7. i did see the video

and being a native angelino, i still think your anger is misplaced. there is not a chance in hell that guy should have gone anywhere near that road with cars going 60+ mph!!! that's just asinine! and he would have had to go a mile or two down the road in order to catch anyone's attention in time. i think you are grasping at straws.

[Trajan]

10. Aint buying it .....

Mile or two ? ... Why so far ? ...

I lived in LA for 37 + years .... but that doesnt alter reality ....

Your presumptions lean towards absurdity ...

[JuniperLea]

15. did you see the speed?

those cars were flying! simple deduction... wet road, fast cars... jeez!

[Sterling]

21. All the more reason to warn people.

Only a douchbag would use it as an oppertunity to shoot some faces of death type garbage that the sick corporate madia pushes.

[Sterling]

23. You are right

this person has such a zeal for their position that they have suspended reality to stretch far enough to stay true to it in the face of decency and reason.

Kind of like a shock jock or something along those lines. Not some one coming from a serious point of view.

[Sterling]

6. 911 call.

No I deduce from the evidence.

The footage taken happened over the course of over an hour. It appears not only did he film the first accident but he stayed after the first was cleared away to film further accidents.

It could be possible that the cops took a couple of hours to arrive but from the footage it is clear he was there over an extended period of time, possibly even after the police had come and gone. However given that their were no road flares or warnings posted to motorists that a car was disabled in the middle of the road I doubt cops had made it to the scene at all during the course of his shooting.

[JuniperLea]

9. you assume much

eom

[Sterling]

12. No I deduce from the evidence.

And I explained the facts I based that opinion on. Now if you care to actually address any of those facts you may have a chance to make a point.

[JuniperLea]

18. yes, and your statements confirm what i said

you said the guy stayed there until after the accident was cleared... who cleared it? the authorities of course! so there were emergency crews there at some point, making your assumption of 'no one called 911' moot.

call any police or traffic authority nationwide and ask if bystanders should flag down traffic going over 60 MPH on a wet road and see what they say.

i'm calling the CHP - i'll let you know what they say.

[Sterling]

24. who cleared it?

Good question, glad you asked. Pay more attention this time and you may find you ignored some important details already covered. Like I said their were several accidents in a row shown on TV. Each accident involved a new vehicle or vehicles in some cases crashing into the first disabled car.

The same disabled vehicle caused all the crashes. Although the preceding vehicles involved in the crash had been moved their were no flares or warning lamps placed to warn other motorists of the danger posed by the disabled car.

This would indicate to anyone beyond a third grade level that the police had not yet been to the scene. Given the volume of crashes and the fact that there was enough time between crashes to clear away the previous wrecks any reasonable person would deduce that the drama continued for some time. Enough time for the police if notified at the point that the camera person started pulling out their gear would have made the scene.

Regardless of the amount of time, 1 hour or five mins the camera crew behaved like cowards/coward. If you would have chose to do as they did you too would be a coward.

[L.A.dweller]

26. There is a video on eBaum's world

in which a man is videotaping cars crashing
into one another on an icy street. He is just
chuckeling his dumb ass off as he watches.

It is called "fun on ice" but it is disturbing
to know that someone would set up a camera
and watch the chaos for fun. I guess people need
some fun in their lives at the expense of others
of course.
http://www.ebaumsworld.com/aug04.shtml

[ElsewheresDaughter]

8. he will recieve his karma...the man is an animal and the CNN guy agreed

that he should have just kept filming instead of call 911 or help...sick puppies :puke:

[Sterling]

13. It speaks volumes about the state of our culture.

We have a culture of bloodsport that is snowballing out of control,

[JuniperLea]

17. yeah, the bloodsport of going for the jugular

on anything without logic or proof!

[Sterling]

20. WTH are you talking about?

You have really had a breakdown or something on this thread.

[chocula]

11. I know..

I've seen local stations do this before during ice storms. WTF?? What if someone were seriously injured?

[Sterling]

14. He would have no greater risk to himself if he had flagged people down

from the side of the road up the road in front of the accident than he did posting out right next to the accident filming.

In fact he could have been more safe further up the road in advance of the scene of the accident. It was depraved and for nothing more than a looky loo story, NOT EVEN REAL NEWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[JuniperLea]

16. oh brother!

hello! telephoto lense! man, you are hurting for someone to slam!

[Sterling]

19. I shoot for a living.

He was within 100 feet of the disabled vehicle. The embankments in those areas don't even permit you to get a shot from any further than that.

Why you are going so far out of your way to defend this kind of depraved indifference is beyond me.

[DireStrike]

22. This is a case for the Seinfeld "Good Samaritan" law

Although nobody here would want to take away this man's freedom to be a complete douche.

No offense to douches, douche users, or other douche associated entities.

[Sterling]

25. I think there are laws against failing to report a crime

or accident scene. I also think there are laws that would cover watching people continue to injury themselves from a situation like this especially if it was for monetary gain like this situation.

People who are willing to watch others suffer and profit from it are douches.

[patcox2]

27. Not likely there was any legal requirement.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but laws requiring passers-by to render assistance or help in accident situations go against american-anglo saxon legal tradition. Put it another way, there has never been a tradition of laws making it mandatory to render assistance (on land, anyway). Note that I am referring to passers-by, not people involved in the accident.

There are a number of reasons for this. First, most english and american laws are prohibitions, they tell you what you are forbidden to do, what you cannot do. This makes freedom of action the default; you can do anything thats not prohibited, as opposed to imposing many difficult to remember affirmative obligations. It is only recently that there began to be a lot of laws that impose a positive obligation to act, as opposed to a negative prohibition.

Second, there has, until our recent era of cultural illiteracy, long been a recognition in english and american law that there is a big distinction between morality and legality. The law does not establish morality. What is legal is not necessarily moral, and what is moral is not necessarily legal. This is part of the separation of church and state; many moral precepts have a religious source. The law does not tell you how to be a good and moral person, thats for your religion or philosophy or whatever. The law merely sets the minimum standard, the lowest acceptable level of conduct (which standard is usually set with regard to preventing violence, preserving public order, and nothing more). Again the law and morality are different and separate, just because its legal not to help does not mean its moral not to help.

And finally, there was a quaint principle that certain morally worthy actions should never be made mandatory, because that would cheapen them. It is noble and good for a person to risk himself to aide others in peril. It was felt that the government stepping in and making it mandatory would lessen, rather than increase, the natural human impulse to help. Same with charity, and there the analogy may be better; its not charity if its mandatory, if you know what I mean.

I agree with the traditions of our legal system myself. The legal system is a crude tool, its imperfect, and it should not be looked upon to enforce and micromanage every little action in our lives. It should be distinguished from morality. Societal norms and mores should be used to establish higher ethical duties, the law should set the lowest limit only. You are in fact doing exactly that when you make the judgment that the person is a douche. It is a tradition in our law that one should be free to be a douche, but that means having to accept ostracism and hatred by our fellows. Your judgment of douche-ness is the appropriate punishment.