No Discipline for Miami Dade Captain in Helicopter LZ Yelling Match
The Miami-Dade fire captain who attempted to stop a photographer from filming at a med flight helicopter landing will not face disciplinary action for his behavior.
Captain Greg Smart yelled at and later pushed photographer/blogger Taylor Hardy in an attempt to get him to stop filming the transfer of a patient from an ambulance to a helicopter. The March 21, 2013 altercation was recorded by Hardy and became somewhat of an Internet sensation when posted on YouTube.
Hardy filed a complaint with MDFR over Captain Smart’s behavior and the matter was investigated. The investigation concluded that disciplinary charges were “not sustained”.
Today, CBSLocal.com in Miami was unusually critical of the investigation characterizing it as a “cover up”. The news outlet cited the fact that the investigation neglected to even consider Captain Smart’s requesting police assistance “Code 3” and mischaracterizing Hardy’s behavior as “combative”, something that is clearly refuted by the video. They also interviewed Hardy, who said he was never informed that his complaint had been dismissed, nor had he received an apology.
The investigation did conclude that Captain Smart acted unprofessionally, but found that “He was under a great deal of stress on this call and acted in an aggressive nature when challenged by the bystander. … Capt Smart agrees that he overreacted and caused embarrassment not only to himself but to the department. I feel that in the future he will have a different perspective as to how we need to act regardless of the severity of the call.”
Incidentally, CBSLocal.com’s news outlet’s sympathies are understandable given the obvious First Amendment issues that are such a huge concern to those in the media. From a Fire Law perspective, I am concerned that by not taking a clearer stand on what (IMHO) was a pretty obvious First Amendment violation MDFR may in fact provoke a totally unnecessary federal lawsuit.
The reality is many in the media feel so passionately about the First Amendment that they are highly motivated to teach governmental actors (such fire departments and firefighters) a lesson… a very expensive lesson that in this case seems to have been missed by MDFR.
Often after a possible liability causing event attorneys take a conservative approach: admit nothing, deny everything and force the bastards to prove their case. Many enlightened leaders are realizing that a simple and sincere apology is often a better solution… one that in the long run can even be cheaper!!!! This case would seen to be a prime candidate for such an approach.
The ball is now in Taylor Hardy’s court. I’d be surprised if First Amendment groups do not rally around Hardy and help bankroll his cause.
Curt,
I am a bit confused by your, and others, statements that there is a First Amendment violation here by Capt., Smart. I will readily agree that there was perhaps a better way for Capt. Smart to get cooperation from the videographer.
However, at no time does Capt. Smart tell the videographer that he cannot film. In fact, every statement made by Capt. Smart relates to clearing a safe areaa for the landing zone including reference to a directive given that the videographer aknowledges and happened prior to any video taping. In watching the video again, it seems to me that the Capt. does not get in the way of the taping, rather the videographer chooses to hold the camera at an angle downward to be sure to capture the identification of Capt. Smart.
The FF was wrong for telling the videograoher what he did, but the Capt. was very clear that reason for the request to move was to provide a safe area. Do the statements made by the FF actually override the lawful directives given by Capt. Smart?
It seems to me that this videographer was told prior to any taping that he needed to be away from the scene for safety. When Capt. Smart saw that his directive wasn't being followed he responded by giving clearer directives to the videographer who then proceeded to fail to follow the legal directives of the Capt. While the videographer wasn't combative, he was beligerent and uncooperative and although he seemed to know his First Amendment rights he is completely ignorant as to the lawful authority of the FD to control the safety of the scene. As far as the Capt. "yelling" and "shreiking", well all I know from 30+ years of experience, it sounds like nothing more than a raised voice to make sure he is heard and understood above the enviromental sounds.
From the information I have gathered about this incident, it seems to have been a tough one and since air transport was called for I wuld assume that the patient needed transport to a care facility faster than ground transport could provide. I guess that I have trouble condemning Capt. Smart's actions to ensure that the transport isn't delayed due to the LZ not being properly secured. I have seen instances where a pilot refuses to take off until a proper LZ is secured. Is that a chance Capt. Smart should have taken?
Jim and Curt,
I have read differing opinions about the safety/security of the landing zone depicted in this story. Some readers (and bloggers) have said that the photographer's presence was clearly a hazard. Others have expressed the opposite, based on the presence of other people and vehicles that are closer to the helicopter.
My question is this, are objective measurements or standards possible in such cases as this, to clearly establish the different between a "safety issue" and a "something-other-than-safety issue?"
Or does objectivity fly out the proverbial window–perhaps necessarily so?–at emergency scenes, when the assessment and decisions are rendered by people who are under duress, within extreme circumstances, etc.? (But which, in turn, is negated by experience and training, right?)
And is it "people" or "person" in such cases? Will ten officers or ten pilots in the same circumstance agree upon the same outcome? Does this incident pass the smell test for 10%, 20%, 50%, or 100% of officers (or pilots) in the same circumstances.
Jim
I have a hard time believing that Capt. Smart's concern was over bystander safety or landing zone security. If it was about establishing a "clear" landing zone why are cars driving freely within that zone? It appears to be more about the fact that Hardy was filming – which insensed Capt. Smart out of a genuine and honorable concern for patient privacy.
I also do not condemn Capt. Smart. He was doing what he believed was the right thing to do. His actions were entirely understandable. Most fire departments have done little to nothing to educate personnel about people's First Amendment Rights with regard to filming.
This case should be about education… the need for our people and our organizations to be educated. By admitting a mistake was made, acknowledging the issues and the need for more training, the First Amendment folks would have no need to file a suit to prove a point.
By denying there was a violation, and claiming that the conduct was somehow justified, the department is inviting a lesson-teaching federal court lawsuit.
That is just my opinion. I am 100% pro-fire department, and 100% pro-firefighter. I think a smarter approach to this would have been to identify that a lack of training – industry wide – exists and without disciplining Captain Smart personally – recommend that policy and training changes are needed.
Mike
I am not seeing a safety/security issue here. I have flown helicopters. A bigger concern to me would have been the proximity of the apparatus to the LZ. Once I am assured the fire personnel and apparatus are a safe distance from the prop wash – I am not concerned with what is on the other side of them.
That is me. Every pilot is different.
Curt, how do you not condemn a municipal employee supervisor for assaulting a member of the public with a biohazardous substance?
I get the idea that he's probably lacking any 1st Amedment training, as you hypothesize, and I agree with that as a proximate cause of the confrontation. That said, do you not see a problem with a fire captain putting his blood-stained gloves on a citizen who was literally standing still on a public sidewalk?
BH
Interesting question. Assault is a strong term – and would require proof of legal intent to place Hardy in apprehension of imminent contact… battery (making actual contact) would also be in play as an offense as well… but it would have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that it was not incidental contact. Intent – for mental state purposes – means purposeful or knowledge to substantial certainty… maybe MAYBE… recklessness would suffice… maybe… and that is probably stretching it.
To allege intent to assault/batter with a biohazard would be even more difficult to prove. I suppose I could make the argument if I had to. Personally, I'd rather be arguing it was incidental contact by someone who was a bit too exhuberant… too much coffee… too many Red Bulls… maybe not enough sleep (boy do I know that one!!!). LOL!!!!