View Full Version : 911 call released to the public/lives ruined
JustMel
03-15-2010, 02:12 PM
Okay, this whole Toyota things is getting ridiculous. They released the 911 call of the man Sykes who said his Toyota's accelerator was stuck. His wife now says their business (real estate) and lives are now ruined.
Do you think that 911 calls should be released to the public? Do we really have a right to those? Are they public property?
EDIT: If you're going to vote, please explain why you feel that way. The yes votes confuse me. You're not giving up your right to privacy by calling 911. There is or should be some expectation of privacy.
plotthickens
03-15-2010, 02:15 PM
Only with permission. My voice is my voice.
hubcap
03-15-2010, 02:16 PM
Nope.
Stratego
03-15-2010, 02:21 PM
I voted yes simply for the fact that 911 emergency services are funded by the state, in other words, taxpayer money. It's not a private service but a public service, and I think I have the right to gage how well a public service functions or doesn't function (listening to recorded sessions can be instructional). In this case, there is a worthwhile investigation going on to check his claim, and the findings could save lives. The fallout, while sad, is not my responsibilty or the public's. Let her whine. As they say, shit happens.
Angel1
03-15-2010, 02:29 PM
Yes, public service and public accountability. The wrath and adoration of the public can be quite strong. Public officials should be subject to either as the case may call for. I'd rather leave it to news organizations and any other interested parties to determine whether or not they wish to distribute audio of the phone calls.
SShack
03-15-2010, 02:42 PM
Well, if a 911 call ends up being used in a court case it will become a matter of public record anyway, so it's just holding off the inevitable.
Synchronicity
03-15-2010, 02:43 PM
Accountability is important, but not as important as protecting the privacy of individuals. They should be released either anonymously (if such is possible) or with the permission of the caller(s).
JustMel
03-15-2010, 02:43 PM
Well, if a 911 call ends up being used in a court case it will become a matter of public record anyway, so it's just holding off the inevitable.
I can agree with that. If it comes to be used in a court case that's one thing but merely releasing them to media outlets is not helping nor serving anything but the media.
Syntax
03-15-2010, 02:44 PM
Leave it to the INTP to be the first to vote for "it depends", lol.
I'm in agreeance with Stratego; since it's a publicly funded service it makes a bit of sense to let those who fund the service indulge in some transparency(though there are plenty of publicly funded institutions that do not have this characteristic in the US. Imagine if the CIA adopted that policy...). However...yes. It's getting ridiculous. I would think that a "need to know basis" would be more appropriate. Did I really need to know about the tiger woods 911 call? I wasn't even interested. Did I need to know about the cop who called 911 (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) after he stole some pot brownies and then thought he was dying? Arguably yes.
My guess would be that in 99% of cases there is absolutely no need for the public to be aware of both the identity of the caller AND the call made. In the OP's example the call itself was of use but the release of the ID of the caller was unnecessary(if that is indeed what happened...I'm not entirely informed on this event).
Silence
03-15-2010, 03:25 PM
I vote yes. 911 calls can be very important, especially if you're trying to gather evidence for fraud, domestic abuse or other such patterns. Even if there are no court cases in place at the time, 911/incident calls can document the need for a hearing. They're especially important for background checks.
freeeekyyy
03-15-2010, 03:41 PM
911 isn't a private number. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy..
IAMME
03-15-2010, 03:41 PM
What SShack said. 911 records are already public.
When they are the subject of a criminal or civil case and the records have been subpoened they are available to the parties in the case and the court. Once they are used in evidence in a public trial, the press can have access. Arguably, the press can subpoena the records for their own use as well.
JustMel
03-15-2010, 04:36 PM
But should the media be allowed to splash them all over the web and TV?
SShack
03-15-2010, 04:49 PM
But should the media be allowed to splash them all over the web and TV?
Well, the government wouldn't be "allowed" to prohibit posting this information in the U.S. anyway. It does not have the authority to decide what the media can report.
If you don't like the fact that 911 records are given to media for profit, then just don't call 911.
/sarcasm
Grimstad
03-15-2010, 06:56 PM
I think it's reasonable to expect some anonymity (Addresses, phone numbers, etc.). But, if the tape is newsworthy, the names of those involved is already in print somewhere. I don’t know the specifics of this case but I’ll check it out and see if I still feel the same.
Warrior
03-15-2010, 07:02 PM
Arguably, the press can subpoena the records for their own use as well.
How can they do this? The press generally don't have subpoena power.
Grimstad
03-15-2010, 07:19 PM
Ok, I found it. ( To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.) I don’t see how the 911 tape specifically, is the cause of their problem. The event and the participants names are a matter of public record through the police officer involved. That’s what made the info public record.
scout5
03-15-2010, 07:42 PM
I'm torn on this. Do I think newsworthy and investigative incidents should be available? Yes. Do I think desperate calls made when loved ones are experiencing some health tragedy should be made available? No. Where to draw the line on giving the caller some dignity and privacy?
jm123
03-15-2010, 07:55 PM
It should depend on state laws, regarding the recording of telephone calls. However, I still think it should not be permissible. Solely on the fact that a person calling 911 is in a forced state of disclosure.
It should depend on state laws, regarding the recording of telephone calls. However, I still think it should not be permissible. Solely on the fact that a person calling 911 is in a forced state of disclosure.
And this could possibly lead to people not calling 911, if the releasing of tapes gets much worse. The numbers of people who already avoid helping their fellow citizens, for various reasons, just gained another excuse for not helping.
Officer- "Why didn't you call 911? Why didn't you offer assistance?"
Witness- "Because I didn't want to be on primetime news, youtube viral videos, nor be subjected to the mass ridicule of either."
zibber
03-16-2010, 04:13 AM
It's not a private service but a public service, and I think I have the right to gage how well a public service functions or doesn't function (listening to recorded sessions can be instructional).
Yes, but where does the public come in?
What SShack said. 911 records are already public.
When they are the subject of a criminal or civil case and the records have been subpoened they are available to the parties in the case and the court. Once they are used in evidence in a public trial, the press can have access. Arguably, the press can subpoena the records for their own use as well.
This is the problem. Corporate media thrives on scandals and sensation. The reason this call got out to a wide audience is not some investigation, it is simple media sensationalism.
Obviously some calls must be available as evidence when this is needed. To leak them to the mass media for public distribution is another thing entirely.
JustMel
03-16-2010, 03:13 PM
Just like the Corey Haim 911 call placed by his mother being released. What's the point? What purpose is served by splashing it all over the tabloids?
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
kepstein8888
03-16-2010, 04:10 PM
Absolutely not. No one should have to hesitate to report an emergency out of fear that the media will use it to ruin their life. 911 is exclusively for emergencies, and should remain exclusively so, or it no longer serves its purpose.
Lucid
03-16-2010, 06:31 PM
Okay, this whole Toyota things is getting ridiculous. They released the 911 call of the man Sykes who said his Toyota's accelerator was stuck. His wife now says their business (real estate) and lives are now ruined.
How did a 911 call ruin their lives?
JustMel
03-16-2010, 06:36 PM
How did a 911 call ruin their lives?
That's what I asked. All I could dig up was they own a real estate business and something about the media attention prevents their showing houses. Really, I wouldn't want to walk through cameras to look at a house while questions are being yelled at my realtor.
Lucid
03-16-2010, 06:52 PM
That's what I asked. All I could dig up was they own a real estate business and something about the media attention prevents their showing houses. Really, I wouldn't want to walk through cameras to look at a house while questions are being yelled at my realtor.
But that's not really the result of the 911 call being public. Instead it appears to be a result of media attention preventing the showing of their houses.
Somehow. I'm not sure how that could be unless they show the houses themselves and the media are following them around in packs or something. Which is possible.
More likely is that this woman is looking to sue someone over a small inconvenience. That's my guess anyway.
His wife now says their business (real estate) and lives are now ruined.
Their lives were already ruined. That's why he was trying to pull this scam in the first place. 911 calls are public record to begin with so releasing them to the public is a non issue. Sikes knew the calls were public record. He was using the 911 call to establish credibility for his attempted fraud.
JustMel
03-17-2010, 01:45 PM
Their lives were already ruined. That's why he was trying to pull this scam in the first place. 9-11 calls are public record to begin with so releasing them to the public is a non issue.
If you were bleeding on the floor and your family called 911 (not 9-11) would you want that splashed all over the tabloids for someone else to profit off of? We're not just talking about this case, but every case.
Zsych
03-17-2010, 02:04 PM
Well its really a matter of results. I wouldn't object to scientific analysis for any number of reasons. The promotion of knowledge, and the development of better processes, is not the same as letting everyone have it. I think there's any amount of information that the average person is better off not having access to.
Their lives were already ruined. That's why he was trying to pull this scam in the first place. 911 calls are public record to begin with so releasing them to the public is a non issue. Sikes knew the calls were public record. He was using the 911 call to establish credibility for his attempted fraud.
Can you prove it? Has he been convicted? Is it possible you may have come to an unsubstantiated conclusion based on what you saw and heard in the media, in articles that were not complete and investigated thoroughly? What of possible jurors that came to this same conclusion through the same method?
Do I like listening to 911 tapes? Sure, but that doesn't mean that I have the right to listen to it without going through proper channels (determining that I have a legal need to listen to it). There is no negative impact for nor playing the tapes in public media venues, but the impact it could have by making them public without proper consideration, and permissions given by the caller, the impact would like be very bad.
jm123
03-17-2010, 06:23 PM
Their lives were already ruined. That's why he was trying to pull this scam in the first place. 911 calls are public record to begin with so releasing them to the public is a non issue. Sikes knew the calls were public record. He was using the 911 call to establish credibility for his attempted fraud.
This is based on what? The fact that Toyota said it was not possible based on their extensive evaluation of the vehicle? I don't know, but were they not just saying it was floor mats causing all of the issues, and now stuck floor pedals. Do they not have an inherent interest in not recalling over 95% of their vehicles made over the last decade for faulty electronics. It is impossible to tell which party is telling the truth. However, Toyota's word is definitely highly suspect.
childofprodigy
03-17-2010, 08:54 PM
Okay, this whole Toyota things is getting ridiculous. They released the 911 call of the man Sykes who said his Toyota's accelerator was stuck. His wife now says their business (real estate) and lives are now ruined.
Do you think that 911 calls should be released to the public? Do we really have a right to those? Are they public property?
EDIT: If you're going to vote, please explain why you feel that way. The yes votes confuse me. You're not giving up your right to privacy by calling 911. There is or should be some expectation of privacy.
How exactly did the 911 call ruin his life? Background info (link) plz....
JustMel
03-17-2010, 08:58 PM
How exactly did the 911 call ruin his life? Background info (link) plz....
I first saw it as a blurb on one of those Inside Edition type shows, then saw where other 911 calls have been released on other cases and it started the train of thought. BUT since you asked about this one specifically, even though I've already answered this somewhere else, I found a link for you.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
SShack
03-17-2010, 10:18 PM
If you were bleeding on the floor and your family called 911 (not 9-11) would you want that splashed all over the tabloids for someone else to profit off of? We're not just talking about this case, but every case.
This has been going on for decades, and yet people still call 911. This is not new. This is a strange argument. That the media makes a profit off of providing information to public is not new. It's been going on since the creation of the printing press. Crime-oriented newspapers were raking in cash telling lurid details of crimes as far back as the 1920s.
Nobody is going to not call 911 in an emergency for fear of press coverage. There is no logic to back that up.
Nobody is going to not call 911 in an emergency for fear of press coverage. There is no logic to back that up.
That is a pretty broad and baseless assumption. It may not stop someone from calling if their own life or property are in danger, but what of other's life and/or property? It could certainly make you think twice (I'm thinking about it now, I don't -want- to call, under threat of media coverage).
JustMel
03-17-2010, 10:33 PM
This has been going on for decades, and yet people still call 911. This is not new. This is a strange argument. That the media makes a profit off of providing information to public is not new. It's been going on since the creation of the printing press. Crime-oriented newspapers were raking in cash telling lurid details of crimes as far back as the 1920s.
Nobody is going to not call 911 in an emergency for fear of press coverage. There is no logic to back that up.
I didn't say people wouldn't call 911 for fear of the call getting out. I asked how you'd feel if it were your 911 call being blasted online, TV etc for all to hear and dissect.
Mogura
03-17-2010, 11:11 PM
Privacy and ethics issues aside, if the media makes money selling something with my voice on it, I want a cut of that action...
Tristan
03-18-2010, 09:40 PM
Dear No's,
Your opinion is in error, we assure you.
Sincerely,
The Fort Pierce Police Department
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
JustMel
03-18-2010, 09:57 PM
Dear No's,
Your opinion is in error, we assure you.Sincerely,
The Fort Pierce Police Department
That particular call I heard on the news one night. I think that's a product of poor parenting way back in that line.
jm123
03-19-2010, 09:34 AM
Dear No's,
Your opinion is in error, we assure you.
Sincerely,
The Fort Pierce Police Department
You appear to have made the same mistake as the woman in the report. What is so critical about this being released to the public? Humor, and showing how stupid people are, does not mean the no's opinion is invalidated. She was given a citation and ordered to go to a court date. How exactly does that require, her call to be released to the public? Better yet, how does that empirically demonstrate that the people that disagree with the release of calls, are wrong?
Tristan
03-20-2010, 10:33 AM
You appear to have made the same mistake as the woman in the report. What is so critical about this being released to the public? Humor, and showing how stupid people are, does not mean the no's opinion is invalidated. She was given a citation and ordered to go to a court date. How exactly does that require, her call to be released to the public? Better yet, how does that empirically demonstrate that the people that disagree with the release of calls, are wrong?
Now that you took issue with it, I see your point clearly. The Nos aren't invalidated by this. But the Yes argument is still, I think, far more reasonable. It's not that her getting a citation requires that the 911 call be released. It's already been said in the thread: 911 calls are a public interest, because the public (the payer and recipient of the service) needs to know how this service operates and how it is being used. If the content of an emergency call ends up reflecting rather poorly upon the caller, so much the better for society. Maybe cold-hearted, I know, but hey this is the INTJ forum :square:
The only time to conceal a 911 call, as far as I see, is in the midst of searches where the hounds need to keep their intelligence concealed from the criminals. Not really a situation you'd need a poll and debate.
<snip>
The only time to conceal a 911 call, as far as I see, is in the midst of searches where the hounds need to keep their intelligence concealed from the criminals.
So, it's only okay to release the tapes when it doesn't really matter? If the law is releasing tapes being a right of the people, then there should be no exceptions.
Tristan
03-20-2010, 04:27 PM
Well... protection is also a right of the people. We have to leverage this right against releasing information if some kind of pursuit is ongoing. Seems to negate the whole point of chasing criminals if we have to show our hand to them. They can just remain two steps ahead and live happily ever after.
Hamburglar
03-21-2010, 09:59 AM
I voted yes.
You are assigning blame too high up the chart my friend. Nobody did anything wrong, except for the people who are now responsible for ruining those peoples lives, "the general public". I think this case effectively demonstrates why the general public should not be allowed to make their own decisions. Here they are, his friends and family, and their professional associates outcasting them for being a part of an unfortunate series of events which misreported that they were "faking it" when in fact the event is just unresolved. That is to say, in the effort to prove faulty accelerator "results are inconclusive" versus "it did not happen". Keep this in mind when someone in your life faces an unintended disaster, don't be so quick to Judge. Entertain the possibility that you are making your decision to judge negatively without "all" the facts.
kgreen93
03-21-2010, 10:05 AM
I think that releasing 911 calls can be a violation of privacy. If they have permission from all parties involved, then I do not see a problem with it. If they do not, they should not be released.
Lucy Snowe
03-23-2010, 02:02 PM
It depends, but not on the person. If making a call public significantly improves public safety then yes (or data from several calls, like if there were a lot of accidents at an intersection or something) if possible this should be done without dislosing the identity of the caller. Otherwise no, it seems like it only feeds gossip, erodes privacy, and discourages calling 911.
Apocynum
03-24-2010, 10:13 PM
I vote No. I am making a distinction however between making it part of public record and passing it on to an exploitive broadcasting media. Even with online publishing of public records, the victims can readily avoid having the reminder in front of them everywhere they turn.
The state I live in (Florida) apparently has an interesting law about releasing 911 calls. They can do so, but only if the call can provide some public service, typically educating people about some danger to avoid, or how to handle some particular situation, etc. I can agree with that. But I still think that if a child is involved, it should require permission of the parents before being available for broadcast.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.