Paul Pelton, he of the charming mug shot above, witnessed a fatal car crash on Monday and was reportedly the first person on the scene. Instead of helping other bystanders to assist the two injured young men (one of whom died later in hospital), Pelton filmed the grim scene on his cell phone, with running commentary disparaging the teenagers as "idiots." As the police report describes it,
In the video, the male makes comments that the boys were "Idiots," and holds his cell phone so that he can film these two boys who were in medical crisis. The male then opens the back door of this vehicle and leans in to continue capturing video. He walks around to the driver’s side and video tapes the driver, and then returns to the door that he opened and continues to capture video of these boys and the interior of the vehicle. - Ars Technica
Legally, of course, he was under no obligation to provide aid and assistance. He also had every legal right, as far as I know (IANAL), to video the scene. But then he went too far.
As the first person there, he opened the car door and leaned inside to better film the dying passenger. As nearby residents attempted to help the victims, he went around to the other side to do the same thing with driver, interfering with their efforts.
In short, he acted like a ghoulish asswipe instead of a decent human being.
He posted the video, with his callous commentary, on Facebook and unsuccessfully tried to sell the rights to two television news organizations. Eventually the video was taken down from Facebook. He claimed that his motive was to educate people about the dangers of reckless driving but his attempt to profit off the video rather belies that assertion.
On Wednesday he was arrested and charged with a form of trespass for entering a crime scene. It's a misdemeanor punishable by up to 30 days in jail and a $250 fine.
Police and prosecutors frankly admit they searched for something to legitimately charge him with: "We searched to try to find anything to charge him with" said one of the detectives. In most cases, I disapprove of prosecutorial overreach to get a desired outcome, but you know what? In this instance, I'm fine with it.
In television and cinema, "there oughtta be a law against that!" is a routine trope to express outrage, often mock outrage. But sometimes there really should be a law, or judiciously restrained application of existing laws, to discourage some of the lowest forms of behavior. It seems a good number of our fellow citizens never got the lecture from their moms that the rest of us did: "just because you can do something it doesn't mean you should do it." Perhaps they were raised by wolves, who knows?
Yes, the First Amendment is important. But this isn't a First Amendment case. Pelton was perfectly free to film the scene at a reasonable distance, whether to use it for genuine journalistic purposes or merely to gain brownie points on social media. He didn't have a right to interfere or impede the efforts of real Good Samaritans.
Purists will scream that "information wants to be free!" No, it doesn't. Information couldn't give a rat's ass about freedom or anything else, because it isn't conscious. Human beings decide what should be free and what is desirable or permissible in society. And anyone who believes that there should be no limits under any circumstances for text, photos, videos or other data, has never been doxxed.
Society has a legitimate and necessary interest in promoting the free flow of information which is of value and import to the public. But it also has equal right and motive to protect privacy and personal safety for individuals. Sometimes it's tricky to find the balance between the two goals.
In some instances like this, it shouldn't ever even need to be debated as a legal issue. Simple common decency, which ideally should be ingrained in all of us as compassionate responsible fellow citizens, would have kept this moron from indulging his basest instincts.