Morals

[Paul]

So today, an accident occurred in Preston involving 4 vehicles.

 

Two motorists had to be rescued from their vehicles by the fire brigade using cutting gear.

 

This happened just a few yards from the shop where I work, and I took 2 snaps on my mobile phone (I still have them, and can post them where I choose).

 

Back in the shop this raised an interesting (and considered) conversation with someone who thought taking the photos was shocking, almost abhorrent. To me, I was photographing the event like I might any other.

 

My colleague asked "if it was my wife and daughter involved, would I be happy someone taking photos"? I said, probably not, but it is the way of the world and if it happened, it happened.

 

So - morals.

 

Is it right or wrong (even on a mobile) to photograph an incident or not, and show these via whatever media, be it forum, or social media like Facebook/Twitter, or pass on to local news establishments?

 

Had I been a working journalist, then it would be considered a requirement to photograph it as news, but what about bystanders?

 

 

 

Let the debate begin....

 

 

Paul.

[FUJI]

I think as long as you didn't hinder the rescuers, ignore. the injured, record recognisable victim faces, injuries or bare flesh, or kids, then all should be fine.

If taken very soon after the accident the photographs may be very useful as court evidence, the innocent parties insurance claim or as news pics in the media if the incident was important enough.

As always common sense should prevail.

If I chance upon an incident I would do the same, within my bounds above.

FUJI

[David]

I agree with Fuji on this.

[Black Pearl]

Take pictures - I would and do.

At the end of the day a local press togger would so what is the difference?

[Guest]

I used to photograph at a lot of car races. If a fatality occurred I know at least one magazine I sent pictures to out of decency would not use a photograph no matter how dramatic. If I knew a fatality had occurred I would not photograph BUT just after the event you cannot know.

 

However, whether to take pictures or not is hardly the issue; the question to ask is can I do anything more useful? Can I perhaps save a life? If the answer is yes do that and forget about the pictures, Otherwise imagine the pictures that will be in your mind (if not your camera) forever.

[NannyFerret]

Strangly enough, I watched a documentory about the crash which killed, Diana.
These photographers were so out of order and hampered Diana's treatment.
I think if it came ito it, I couldn't, as I would feel too sick knowing that someones child mother husband etc. could be involved and that one day it could be one of my own family. How would I feel then.
If it was a minor crash then I might of the damage to the car, or maybe of the attending rescuers.

Can you imagine even sitting in a crashed car knowing that people were taking photographs. 

[ChrisLumix]

It's a fine line, I'd say. You're talking about a car crash with certain injuries. But what about a fire, with an unknown outcome regarding injuries (or worse)? Would any of you NOT use your camera in these situations..?

 

 

I suppose what I'm saying is, treat each incident on  its own merits, and if it's someone - dead or alive - being cut out of a car smash, I HOPE that I would resist the urge to take photos.

[NannyFerret]

I agree, Chris.

The above pic is very good. It tells the story without being up close and personal with any victims there might be.

It boils down to common sense and respect, doesn't it?

[Leon]

on saturday a young lad crashed his kart into a tyre wall, I was taking pics till I realised he was hurt, then I stopped and turned my camera off. 

[jeremy rundle]

Sorry, I would take the photos, even if the worst happened, the question is would I seek to "gain from them", no.

[Paul]

These were the two:

 

[Paul]

 

As you can see - nothing graphic - though the car involved was the one that later had the roof removed to get the female passenger out.

 

 

Paul.