Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(LA Times)   Firefighter who took photos of Kobe Bryant crash site is suing after unfairly being held accountable   (latimes.com) divider line
    More: Facepalm  
•       •       •

3534 clicks; posted to Main » on 21 Nov 2020 at 3:45 AM (12 days ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



49 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-11-21 3:53:28 AM  
"Imbrenda"

I'm the leader, but I'm not responsible for my subordinates.
 
2020-11-21 4:03:19 AM  
You want there to be a rare aviation accident with a million dollar helicpter that had fatalites and not to take photos of what happened to the people in it?

That will cost lives in the future. Engineers need that infromatn.

THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS IDIOTS

I guess people should be held accountable for filming the wtc attacks to!!
 
2020-11-21 4:10:11 AM  
Meh, it's not great for the firefighter to do this.

Otoh, photos and video go out of all sorts of accidents all the time, undoubtedly plenty of which are taken by various first responders.

This is only a thing because Kobe. Even in death the wealthy and famous are our betters.
 
2020-11-21 4:22:42 AM  

Smackledorfer: Meh, it's not great for the firefighter to do this.

Otoh, photos and video go out of all sorts of accidents all the time, undoubtedly plenty of which are taken by various first responders.

This is only a thing because Kobe. Even in death the wealthy and famous are our betters.


Sort of - plenty of department of various sorts get very tetchy when someone's releasing scene photos.  Can contaminate investigations, blow leads, reveal shiat they'd rather keep quiet as verification that who they catch was indeed involved.  Isn't hardly the first time someone's gotten handed their head for this stuff, it's more unusual in that it's gone public.

/and sorry Captain, but "Was that wrong?  Should I not have done that?" isn't going to fly here
 
2020-11-21 4:39:45 AM  
BOO farkING HOO. Did someone not expect consequences for their actions here? The public places a ton of trust in us in their hours of need. This is nothing more than a betrayal of that. Famous or not.

Smackledorfer: Meh, it's not great for the firefighter to do this.

Otoh, photos and video go out of all sorts of accidents all the time, undoubtedly plenty of which are taken by various first responders.

This is only a thing because Kobe. Even in death the wealthy and famous are our betters.


Most departments now have social media policies that extend above and beyond from HIPAA requirements of PHI protection. If they do so, it's perfectly legal and kosher to terminate emergency responders for this - and I can guarantee they were made aware of this when they were hired in the first place.
 
2020-11-21 5:23:47 AM  
I read that as "Kobe Bryant cash site" and I don't think I read it wrong.

Bottom line is that TMZ or somebody similar has probably been to every first responder in LA and let them know that if there is ever a celebrity death, the first good pictures they get will be a 100k payday.  Imbrenda here thought that based on the number of people taking pictures at the site, someone might beat him to it and that it would be hard to trace back to him, especially if he was only the recipient of files and didn't take any photos as he claims.
 
2020-11-21 5:32:08 AM  

litheandnubile: You want there to be a rare aviation accident with a million dollar helicpter that had fatalites and not to take photos of what happened to the people in it?

That will cost lives in the future. Engineers need that infromatn.

THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS IDIOTS

I guess people should be held accountable for filming the wtc attacks to!!


Funny. Now how much did TMZ pay him for the bodies?
 
2020-11-21 5:41:13 AM  
FTA

Imbrenda subsequently was ordered to turn over his personal cell phone or face suspension or discharge. He refused to do so, saying the order was a violation of the Firefighter Bill of Rights.

LOL, firefighter bill of rights. Thats actually a thing? LOL
 
2020-11-21 5:43:05 AM  

litheandnubile: You want there to be a rare aviation accident with a million dollar helicpter that had fatalites and not to take photos of what happened to the people in it?

That will cost lives in the future. Engineers need that infromatn.

THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS IDIOTS

I guess people should be held accountable for filming the wtc attacks to!!


There is a difference between a first responder taking photographs for investigative purposes and being a first responder who takes photographs for ones own enjoyment. They're not supposed to keep those photos nor save them on personal devices.
 
Al!
2020-11-21 6:18:25 AM  

cman: FTA

Imbrenda subsequently was ordered to turn over his personal cell phone or face suspension or discharge. He refused to do so, saying the order was a violation of the Firefighter Bill of Rights.

LOL, firefighter bill of rights. Thats actually a thing? LOL


The Firefighters Bill of Rights is a real thing. California State code 3250 is clearly defined as such.
 
2020-11-21 6:25:42 AM  

Al!: cman: FTA

Imbrenda subsequently was ordered to turn over his personal cell phone or face suspension or discharge. He refused to do so, saying the order was a violation of the Firefighter Bill of Rights.

LOL, firefighter bill of rights. Thats actually a thing? LOL

The Firefighters Bill of Rights is a real thing. California State code 3250 is clearly defined as such.


Yup - off the CPF website so it's a paraphrase but accurate:

No unreasonable interrogation. The law requires that interrogation be conducted at reasonable hours, with compensation and without verbal or physical threats or extortion;
Protection of basic rights. Individuals must be advised of their rights and secures the right of representation in any and all interrogations; prohibits unwarranted search of personal property or forced submission to polygraph testing;
Maintaining professionalism. Authorizes recording any interrogation by employer or employee, and gives each access to the others recordings and transcripts; statements made under duress can't be used in judicial proceedings;
Preserving appeal rights. Appeals process must conform to state Administrative Procedures Act.


It was put in place because that sort of thing was indeed being violated on a regular basis.  He's full of shiat for claiming it though - suspected dissemination of scene photos is plenty to constitute a warranted search
 
Al!
2020-11-21 6:39:00 AM  

Some Junkie Cosmonaut: Al!: cman: FTA

Imbrenda subsequently was ordered to turn over his personal cell phone or face suspension or discharge. He refused to do so, saying the order was a violation of the Firefighter Bill of Rights.

LOL, firefighter bill of rights. Thats actually a thing? LOL

The Firefighters Bill of Rights is a real thing. California State code 3250 is clearly defined as such.

Yup - off the CPF website so it's a paraphrase but accurate:

No unreasonable interrogation. The law requires that interrogation be conducted at reasonable hours, with compensation and without verbal or physical threats or extortion;
Protection of basic rights. Individuals must be advised of their rights and secures the right of representation in any and all interrogations; prohibits unwarranted search of personal property or forced submission to polygraph testing;
Maintaining professionalism. Authorizes recording any interrogation by employer or employee, and gives each access to the others recordings and transcripts; statements made under duress can't be used in judicial proceedings;
Preserving appeal rights. Appeals process must conform to state Administrative Procedures Act.

It was put in place because that sort of thing was indeed being violated on a regular basis.  He's full of shiat for claiming it though - suspected dissemination of scene photos is plenty to constitute a warranted search


Yeah, I don't see where his claim is legitimate, but the Firefighters Bill of Rights is definitely California state law, as much as the ban on private methamphetamine sales.
 
2020-11-21 6:43:57 AM  

MrSplifferton: "Imbrenda"

I'm the leader, but I'm not responsible for my subordinates.


Fark user imageView Full Size

I'm Brenda, and I am in charge!
 
2020-11-21 7:10:06 AM  

Night Train to Wakanda: litheandnubile: You want there to be a rare aviation accident with a million dollar helicpter that had fatalites and not to take photos of what happened to the people in it?

That will cost lives in the future. Engineers need that infromatn.

THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS IDIOTS

I guess people should be held accountable for filming the wtc attacks to!!

Funny. Now how much did TMZ pay him for the bodies?


Funny isn't the word I would have used. Fark should have a stupid tag. Sorry Lith but you are incorrect to put it gently. Aviation accident investigators are VERY interested in the placement and condition of accident DEBRIS and the spokesman assisted the official photographer for that purpose. They don't need amateur photos of body parts to figure out what caused the crash.  Trust me I should know.
 
2020-11-21 8:39:45 AM  
FTA: Imbrenda's superiors did not communicate that photos of the scene were not allowed, and there's no department policy on photography at emergency incidents, the lawsuit said

I wonder if, and to what extent this will actually impact the lawsuit.
 
2020-11-21 9:57:20 AM  

litheandnubile: You want there to be a rare aviation accident with a million dollar helicpter that had fatalites and not to take photos of what happened to the people in it?

That will cost lives in the future. Engineers need that infromatn.

THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS IDIOTS

I guess people should be held accountable for filming the wtc attacks to!!


I am quite certain that this issue is not regarding the forensic photos taken by actual site investigators and kept privately in the official file related to the investigation.
 
2020-11-21 10:16:31 AM  

aperson: FTA: Imbrenda's superiors did not communicate that photos of the scene were not allowed, and there's no department policy on photography at emergency incidents, the lawsuit said

I wonder if, and to what extent this will actually impact the lawsuit.


Probably a lot. He's going to win the case the only reason it has gotten to this point is because the guy that died was famous.
 
2020-11-21 10:20:07 AM  
The idiot screwed himself over.  that said i would not be surprised if another first responder got caught with pics and rolled over on the guy to try to save his own ass.
 
2020-11-21 10:40:04 AM  

hardinparamedic: Most departments now have social media policies that extend above and beyond from HIPAA requirements of PHI protection.


Wish I could funny just this phrase. Really? Really??

What is it about HIPAA that draws out these kinds of comparisons?
 
2020-11-21 10:41:17 AM  
Wipe your phone and hand it over to them. How hard is that to do?
 
2020-11-21 10:42:32 AM  

Some Junkie Cosmonaut: suspected dissemination of scene photos is plenty to constitute a warranted search


No problem. Get a search warrant.
 
2020-11-21 10:57:20 AM  

grimlock1972: The idiot screwed himself over.  that said i would not be surprised if another first responder got caught with pics and rolled over on the guy to try to save his own ass.


Sure. Have to prove that someone sent him photos, though. Name date and time, preferably pulled from time stamps on the sender's phone (but phone company text records can also match). Absent this, it's not provable.
 
2020-11-21 11:02:25 AM  

lincoln65: hardinparamedic: Most departments now have social media policies that extend above and beyond from HIPAA requirements of PHI protection.

Wish I could funny just this phrase. Really? Really??

What is it about HIPAA that draws out these kinds of comparisons?


Issues of privacy protection go back to Buddy Holly, and his wife learning he died by seeing it on TV. Or radio (can't remember which). She suffered a miscarriage because of it.
 
2020-11-21 11:13:34 AM  

mrmopar5287: Wipe your phone and hand it over to them. How hard is that to do?


They already know he asked others to delete images, so while they can't prove that he had some on his phone, they have him for destruction of evidence, or at least conspiracy to destroy evidence.

He's farked.
 
2020-11-21 11:15:52 AM  

lincoln65: Wish I could funny just this phrase. Really? Really??

What is it about HIPAA that draws out these kinds of comparisons?


What are you even talking about? 

It's an actual argument that has been used in arbitration and emergency services employment cases that Employers can only fire those caught violating HIPAA policies and that social media regulations are not legal/constitutional.

No one is talking about HIPAA.
 
2020-11-21 11:21:13 AM  

indy_kid: lincoln65: hardinparamedic: Most departments now have social media policies that extend above and beyond from HIPAA requirements of PHI protection.

Wish I could funny just this phrase. Really? Really??

What is it about HIPAA that draws out these kinds of comparisons?

Issues of privacy protection go back to Buddy Holly, and his wife learning he died by seeing it on TV. Or radio (can't remember which). She suffered a miscarriage because of it.


I wasn't even talking about HIPAA when I posted that, it was just an example of why people don't even think about social media career suicide.
 
2020-11-21 11:26:05 AM  

lincoln65: hardinparamedic: Most departments now have social media policies that extend above and beyond from HIPAA requirements of PHI protection.

Wish I could funny just this phrase. Really? Really??

What is it about HIPAA that draws out these kinds of comparisons?


It also being a set of rules concerning privacy?
 
2020-11-21 11:34:06 AM  
A manager at the company I own was harassing (trying to ask out) one of our employees.  She complained so we gave him paid time off and had him go take one of those harassment classes.  He sued us for emotional distress at being punished for his behavior.  Our insurance company settled instead of fighting it.  We had to pay our deductible and our workers comp costs skyrocketed for two years.  The aristocrats
 
2020-11-21 11:45:08 AM  

indy_kid: They already know he asked others to delete images


Sure, but if he did that as an ethical and/or courtesy reminder to not allow that sort of thing on private phones, he's basically doing a service to the department for reminding people of what should be an internal policy (but apparently isn't). He's not telling people to delete images to hinder any criminal investigation - he's doing it to tell them to not have that stuff on private phones.

indy_kid: they have him for destruction of evidence, or at least conspiracy to destroy evidence


This isn't a criminal investigation. It's an internal fire department investigation.
 
2020-11-21 11:45:22 AM  

hardinparamedic: BOO farkING HOO. Did someone not expect consequences for their actions here? The public places a ton of trust in us in their hours of need. This is nothing more than a betrayal of that. Famous or not.

Smackledorfer: Meh, it's not great for the firefighter to do this.

Otoh, photos and video go out of all sorts of accidents all the time, undoubtedly plenty of which are taken by various first responders.

This is only a thing because Kobe. Even in death the wealthy and famous are our betters.

Most departments now have social media policies that extend above and beyond from HIPAA requirements of PHI protection. If they do so, it's perfectly legal and kosher to terminate emergency responders for this - and I can guarantee they were made aware of this when they were hired in the first place.


I stand by my statement, and will point to the first sentence I typed.

I'm not saying I support the firefighter in question, I'm saying I don't give a shiat. And I'm saying the ONLY reason this is news is Kobe being famous.

I'm not claiming there has never been any policy against it. Policies get ignored all the time, only to be enforced when the public gets loud about them. The public is only loud because Kobe is special.
 
2020-11-21 11:47:59 AM  

DerAppie: It also being a set of rules concerning privacy?


HIPAA covers private companies who must keep your health information secure.

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individ​u​als/guidance-materials-for-consumers/i​ndex.html

Government entities are not covered. It's not anything to do with HIPAA, despite millions of people reflexively saying that every time they think it should come up.
 
2020-11-21 11:57:40 AM  

mrmopar5287: Wipe your phone and hand it over to them. How hard is that to do?


You mean with bleach?
 
2020-11-21 11:59:30 AM  

litheandnubile: You want there to be a rare aviation accident with a million dollar helicpter that had fatalites and not to take photos of what happened to the people in it?

That will cost lives in the future. Engineers need that infromatn.

THE BLOOD IS ON YOUR HANDS IDIOTS

I guess people should be held accountable for filming the wtc attacks to!!


If pictures need to be taken, there should be someone whose job it is to take them.  Don't have everybody taking them willy-nilly, posing with the corpses, figuring out goofy takes on the situation.  Police have photographers to do just that.  They know what needs to be included, how it should be taken and what to include to frame the suspect, of course.
 
2020-11-21 12:02:16 PM  

mrmopar5287: DerAppie: It also being a set of rules concerning privacy?

HIPAA covers private companies who must keep your health information secure.

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individu​als/guidance-materials-for-consumers/i​ndex.html

Government entities are not covered. It's not anything to do with HIPAA, despite millions of people reflexively saying that every time they think it should come up.


This is not correct. Municipal hospitals, health departments, municipal fire departments to provide emergency medical care, law-enforcement agencies that provide emergency medical care, and emergency medical services agencies are covered entities.

https://www.ems1.com/hipaa/articles/h​i​paa-is-another-ems-elephant-that-contr​ibutes-to-ems-leaders-insomnia-KI5VT2z​xhe5fCshE/

http://www.firelawblog.com/2014/07/18​/​medical-confidentiality-hipaa-hysteria​/

The flipside of this is that the health insurance portability and accountability act actually weakened state health privacy protections that still exist and to cover these agencies as well.

However this case doesn't fall under HIPAA to begin with. It has to do with violating the public information and social media policies at the department
 
2020-11-21 12:02:16 PM  

Fancy_Bear: mrmopar5287: Wipe your phone and hand it over to them. How hard is that to do?

You mean with bleach?


Possibly. It's a pandemic, after all. That's just being courteous.

If it's an iPhone, I'd just backup, restore to a new phone, then remote wipe the old phone and hand it in for them to look through.
 
2020-11-21 12:04:24 PM  

hardinparamedic: It has to do with violating the public information and social media policies at the department


By the guy's account, they have no such policy. I mean, didn't have at the time. I'm sure they do NOW.
 
2020-11-21 2:47:01 PM  
Thin Red Line

Defund the Fire Department

This wouldn't have happened if it was Dane Cook or a white celebrity
 
2020-11-21 2:51:47 PM  

mrmopar5287: Wipe your phone and hand it over to them. How hard is that to do?


Given that most phones default to cloud-based backup, 'wiping' a phone is not going to achieve much...
 
2020-11-21 3:01:11 PM  

Smackledorfer: Policies get ignored all the time, only to be enforced when the public gets loud about them. The public is only loud because Kobe is special.


I'm being loud about it because I expect better of my profession than this shiatheel.
 
2020-11-21 3:08:17 PM  

LarrySouth: Given that most phones default to cloud-based backup, 'wiping' a phone is not going to achieve much...


Sure, but they'd have to make a "law enforcement" request to Apple to get an iCloud backup. Probably a search warrant, and this FD internal investigation isn't something where they are having police get warrants because it's not a criminal issue.

For iPhones, you have to choose to backup to iCloud. It's not defaulted. It's not turned on for my phone. My iPhone is routinely backed up to my MacBook Pro, which is then backed up to an encrypted external hard disk.
 
2020-11-21 3:14:16 PM  

hardinparamedic: Smackledorfer: Policies get ignored all the time, only to be enforced when the public gets loud about them. The public is only loud because Kobe is special.

I'm being loud about it because I expect better of my profession than this shiatheel.


Ok.
 
2020-11-21 3:32:24 PM  

mrmopar5287: Government entities are not covered. It's not anything to do with HIPAA, despite millions of people reflexively saying that every time they think it should come up.


When someone says "they have rules more strict than HIPAA" that doesn't mean "HIPAA applies here". It means "the strictness of the HIPAA rules will be used as a baseline for comparison".

Think about it. If the first person to mention HIPAA thought HIPAA applied here, why would that person say that a different, stricter, set of rules applies?

If I need to dumb it down even further, just consider this: when someone says "the stuff in the barrel is about as viscous as maple syrup", it doesn't make the stuff maple syrup. Nor is anyone saying the stuff should be used for things maple syrup is used for. DO NOT PUT THE STUFF FROM THE BARREL ON YOUR PANCAKES! YOU WILL DIE!
 
2020-11-21 4:56:57 PM  

hardinparamedic: Smackledorfer: Policies get ignored all the time, only to be enforced when the public gets loud about them. The public is only loud because Kobe is special.

I'm being loud about it because I expect better of my profession than this shiatheel.


I'm with you Hardin, this is a public trust issue, the individuals photographed should be immaterial (but aren't obs)
 
2020-11-21 7:24:54 PM  

mrmopar5287: By the guy's account, they have no such policy. I mean, didn't have at the time. I'm sure they do NOW.


They can fall back on "the only person authorized to release this kind of stuff is the chief and public information officer".

But yeah. I'm sure they do now.
 
2020-11-22 2:52:27 AM  
I gotta go with the FF here, sure it wouldn't be my choice but his pictures were the next day presumably after bodies had been removed, doesn't sound like he shared them so I'm with him this was department over-reach in the midst of the frenzy of a PR frenzy trying to tamp down on the pictures released by that Deputy. They don't have the right to warrant search him I predict he'll win his suit. As has been noted this is because the rapist that died was good at throwing a ball around, none of you normals dying don't even get honorable mention.
 
2020-11-22 3:21:50 AM  

abiigdog: I gotta go with the FF here, sure it wouldn't be my choice but his pictures were the next day presumably after bodies had been removed, doesn't sound like he shared them so I'm with him this was department over-reach in the midst of the frenzy of a PR frenzy trying to tamp down on the pictures released by that Deputy. They don't have the right to warrant search him I predict he'll win his suit. As has been noted this is because the rapist that died was good at throwing a ball around, none of you normals dying don't even get honorable mention.


But they did share them.  A day after bodies were removed or what not, if he didn't share them it wouldn't be news, right?  Nobody would have known, and instead of violating policy, it would have just been another day on his job.  

But he farked up, and regardless of you weird arsed mention of him being a rapist (I'm not debating that right now)  That doesn't excuse professionals from doing their job.
 
2020-11-22 8:09:51 AM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2020-11-22 8:16:08 AM  

Somaticasual: [Fark user image 300x168]


Donald Trump is asking the same question right now.
 
2020-11-22 11:28:16 AM  

MrSplifferton: But they did share them.


It isn't clear that anyone in either department (fire or sheriff) shared the images outside of normal, internal communications, I.E., texting and emailing each other. By "sharing" I mean electronically. And as has been noted in other articles, this isn't a crime and there apparently wasn't any official policy in place preventing it even if done with personally owned cell phones.

The big issue with "SHARING" was when claims are made that sheriff deputies were displaying the photos on their phone screens to people at a bar when they were drinking, and that kicked off the whole investigation.


Here is my opinion on the subject: almost no one signs up to have their personal electronic device subject to monitoring or internal investigation by their job. We don't surrender the right to privacy even if our work doesn't provide us with a work-owned phone and they use our personal phone (with implied consent) to communicate with us about work subjects. If it becomes a criminal matter, law enforcement has the option to get a search warrant for our personal phone - and that's when someone is required to comply. Unless a warrant is sought and granted, it's an outrageous invasion of privacy for someone to have their personal phone subject to their employer gone through and searched for anything/everything it contains.

And that's where this firefighter sits. He had a work phone and apparently firefighters were sending him photos on that phone. There was no policy prohibiting this. When it became an issue, he warned others to delete the photos so they did not become public through whatever might happen (hacked, stolen phones, or even complete jerks sharing/selling the photos to TMZ or whomever). When asked about it, he openly said the photos were sent to his work phone and he turned that phone over for internal investigators to do whatever with it. Then, he balked at having his private phone searched, and was in the right to deny them the opportunity to dig through his entire personal life on his phone.

Is he hiding anything? Who knows and who cares. He could be on Grindr and just doesn't want things that are nobody's business to be searched through by his employer. He has the right to not have that happen. The limits of what his employer can do is to ask him about photos on his personal phone (he has denied having them) and then, he's only in trouble if they can conclusively prove the photos were texted/emailed to him and that he lied about it.
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.