STATter 911

I believe that the issue of fire service personnel taking photos at emergency scenes has a moral and ethical component that often seems to be overlooked. I believe if you respond to the scene with a responsibility to mitigate the emergency, no effort should be spent photographing the scene until the emergency is mitigated.

Citizens have called the fire service because an emergency exists. That is our first priority, period.

Several people will say the photos are for training or other purposes. The reality is they are used on station/shift/unit web pages in a category of “Hot” shots.

For staff on working apparatus, engine/truck/rescue squad, etc., I don’t believe you can justify to anyone why your resources were not completely directed towards assisting the victims or controlling property loss.

For command staff and others, not photographers, I believe they are in a gray zone. When an incident goes badly and the IC is discovered to be more concerned with photo or video activity this issue will erupt to the surface on a national level.

We have a mismatch in priorities that puts people in a position to fail. The same “Hot” shot that people, webmasters/media, are after occurs early in the incident when providing emergency services requires our personnel to perform. At that phase of the incident photo and video activities are not in anyone’s job description responding to the scene to provide emergency services.

The fire service should be proactive and clean up this issue internally before we are forced to do it following a tragedy. I can think of no other public safety service that takes these types of photographs when arriving crews are working to obtain initial control of the incident.

Reference – NPPA Code of Ethics, Item #4

Treat all subjects with respect and dignity. Give special consideration to vulnerable subjects and compassion to victims of crime or tragedy. Intrude on private moments of grief only when the public has an overriding and justifiable need to see.

Other concerns encompassing potential violations of agency policy, photographic content, privacy, investigative impact, etc. also come into play with this issue.


The ethical component of fire rescue photography and video certainly exists but is perhaps overstated by Chief Bowers. We do have an obligation to render care, or provide other emergency services in the most expeditious way possible. We take other steps to impede the timeliness of that service delivery. Stay with me to the end because as I work through this your first inclination will be to dismiss my argument and I admit that it makes little sense when taken in parts.

We do many things that impact the timeliness of our service delivery. Allowing that seconds matter in emergencies we still task our drivers with slowing down and limit the speeds that they can reach. Allowing that seconds matter in emergencies we do not allow people to take their seat belts off and get dressed enroute. As a matter of fact any Chief who saw a unit officer without a seatbelt getting dressed would immediately take action or should take action, right? But what if that engine was “on the air” when a house fire reporting “children trapped” was dispatched and they were a few blocks away? Does that change how you frame the risks, and/or how you frame the discussion of ethics?

Is it acceptable to show up at a house fire with a trapped child and frantic bystanders without having your gear on? Of course you can default to the “I was following orders” defense but that only takes you so far. Admittedly these sort of situations do not happen everyday but still we take measures that slow responses down. Using EMD slows response times, using dysfunctional CAD systems slow responses down and because they cost so much to fix we allow those problems to continue.

Back to the camera, does the camera slow incident response in any measurable way? Who is to say because who is to know? Now this does not mean that I am a supporter of helmet cams and the like. I think that there presence offers the mechanism to ship raw video, which is unedited information into public spaces. The assumption is that the public has a right to know, however, that right to know should be moderated by an obligation to understand and I think society has forgotten that point.

The firefighter exposed to a house fire at three a.m. with or without a helmet cam, is exposed to a dizzying array of informational inputs. These inputs are critical and tap on the full range of sensory ability. The firefighting system is chaotic in the scientific sense in that small inputs create these wildly different outputs based on a wide range of variables. The camera can show the picture of what happened but cannot explain what happened, cannot translate the raw data into a complete picture because complete pictures contain emotions.

We can watch what happened and even critique what happened only if we have been exposed to a similar set of circumstances, recognize the similarities in what we are seeing, and identify differences then from “what I would have done.” Speaking plainly the camera is not the big problem the big problem is what happens to the information when it enters the public domain. Once it has entered the public domain there is no explaining, there is no turning back, and there is nothing beyond excuses and rationalization. The unknowing public always wants to know.

As far as the web sites go, it is easier to explain flashover with video than with still pictures, it is easier to demonstrate processes, develop operational awareness, and analyze behaviors with video than with stills.

Beyond that cameras are ubiquitous now, they will not be going away and because they are so portable, so high tech, and so incredibly small, No amount of restriction will slow down their use. The best that we can hope for is to impose some sort of general guideline that would encourage our members to put people and their stuff ahead of picture taking.

Otherwise have at it.
 

Chauncey Bowers would benefit by watching a real video from a fire ground, that would be the closest he's ever been to a fire. The video he must have seen on Kentlands web site must have frighten him, that why the county ordered the video removed. Video's are great learning tools, but should be limited to publication, depending on contents. Videos could be a great tool in the Office of the Fire Chief (PGFD) not many of those leader (to be used lightly) have ever been in combat..... at a fire
 

Bowers talking about ethics? I see he quoted only one line - he certainly missed the line about treating all employees the same regardless of whether or not they are paid he conveniently left off. Those who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones... BTW the PGFD PIO Office uses plenty of pictures..

I think its a worthwhile discussion but he should stay out of it.
 

Your statement you gathered from Chauncy Bowers also comes from a man in the PGFire Department who went out of their way to stop Kentland from using helmet cameras because they don't want any positive publicity for Volunteers. I don't believe a think Chauncy says.
 

I'm tired of hearing Kentland cry.

Nobody of consequence cares.
 

kiddieland kiddieland kiddieland,guys stop patting yourselve's on the back so much,your going to pull something.everytime someone speaks in that state someone from kentland thinks its a conspiricy to put down kentland.you guy's must have very low self-esteem huh? are there any other fire departments in that state?just wondering.pat maine