• Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

At about 1:45 p.m. on Wednesday, October 28, I was driving northbound on SR-125 and noticed a curious sight: traffic on the westbound 94 connector ramp was stopped, with a California Highway Patrol car parked diagonally in front of the vehicles. Traffic was driving slowly on the eastbound side of the freeway. A CHP officer was directing cars to make a sharp turn onto the eastbound 94 connector ramp. Just then, I heard on the radio that traffic on the 94 was closed in both directions due to a possible “jumper” on the Lemon Grove Avenue bridge.

After driving to Riviera Drive near High Street for a closer look, I noticed a La Mesa police officer standing next to his patrol car, watching the scene. Holding my camera in my hand, I approached him to ask what was going on. He spoke first, however, saying, “How would you like it if that was you? Would you want someone taking pictures?” I could not answer him, not knowing what frame of mind would cause someone to choose such a public place as a busy freeway and evidently threaten to jump in full view of hundreds of people.

Generally I like cops, especially the La Mesa Police Department, having gone on three different Citizen Ride-Alongs with them over the years. After some mild protest on my part, including the mention of a dear friend that jumped from a bridge several years ago, the policeman pretty much ended it by saying, “So, why don’t you take your camera and go somewhere else?”

Noticing his rank of sergeant on his badge, and discerning that he had some strong personal feelings on the matter, I chose to comply.

According to other news reports, the woman later slipped and fell onto the freeway, where she was attended to by medical personnel and then taken to a hospital. Her condition was not made public.

  • Story alerts
  • Letter to Editor
  • Pin it

Comments

PistolPete Oct. 30, 2009 @ 10:29 a.m.

What a dick! I'll bet that cop wouldn't dare say that to the media.

0

ironcross Oct. 30, 2009 @ 12:13 p.m.

LOL, He was kinda out of his jurisdiction to be telling you what to do. LMPD got called in to help with crowd control. I heard it all over the radio. She was upset because her kids got taken away and some other stuff. She told the crisis team that she wouldn't jump if people were watching... Yet the news chopper freaked her out.

0

SurfPuppy619 Oct. 30, 2009 @ 12:17 p.m.

I remember when this happened on the South Bound 163 and I-8 a few years back, and it was a mess.

0

Ponzi Nov. 1, 2009 @ 6:44 a.m.

She died of her injuries.

On another note, the La Mesa Police officer was probably in his jurisdiction. Since he was blocking traffic to Lemon Grove Avenue from La Mesa. The boundary of La Mesa and Lemon Grove runs along I-94 is you look at a map.

0

amjunior Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:53 p.m.

“How would you like it if that was you? Would you want someone taking pictures?” “So, why don’t you take your camera and go somewhere else?” These sound like pretty fair questions that even a citizen might ask.

0

PistolPete Nov. 3, 2009 @ 3:58 p.m.

Like I stated earlier, I'd like to see that pig try that s*** with the media. I have the right to film ANYTHING, even the pigs doing their jobs, while in public. The only thing I can't film is private property where it would be assumed that there is a high level of privacy.

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 7:56 p.m.

Pete is correct, in public everyone is free game. Ask any papperazzi.

Reminds me of a buddy who was a BBer and was dieting down for a show and was in top condition, him and the GF went to Blacks Beach to tan, and took off the swim suits, and some gay dude came up with a camera with one of those automatic winders (this was like 25 years ago) and snapped off like 30 pics of my buddy before he could even get off the towel! Next the guy played the public place card, which was legally correct, but since my buddy was 240# and was going to pound camera guy into the sand, camera guy relented and coughed up the film....funny stuff!

0

Pale_Rider Nov. 3, 2009 @ 8:11 p.m.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean you should do it.

0

PistolPete Nov. 3, 2009 @ 8:19 p.m.

That makes no sense,Pale_Rider. If it's legal,who gives a s***?

0

Pale_Rider Nov. 3, 2009 @ 8:38 p.m.

There is a higher authority than the law. It's called a moral code. Example; it may be legal to let a door close in someone's face, but a person with a moral code will hold the door open for the person right behind them. It's not all about YOU. Comprende?

0

David Dodd Nov. 3, 2009 @ 8:55 p.m.

Reporting a news event is not held to some moral code of your choosing, Pale_Rider. Otherwise, there would be no true reports out of Iraq or Afghanistan. People have the right to know the truth, and sometimes this includes photos. Sometimes it isn't pretty. It's part of the 1st Amendment in the United States of America. I think you should get to know it. Comprende?

0

Pale_Rider Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:17 p.m.

That's not what I am talking about. It's a simple concept. If you don't get it, you don't get it. Have a great evening.

0

PistolPete Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:52 p.m.

I suppose you're going to tell me that kids who kill play alot of video games too, AG. Your moral code may be different from my moral code. Who can say which person's moral code is right and which person's moral code is wrong? You can't. THAT'S what makes this such a great country. OH! My mistake! AG doesn't like the Bill of Rights, Constitution or Declaration of Independence. She views them as toilet paper and would rather the U.S. look more like Europe...

0

antigeekess Nov. 3, 2009 @ 9:41 p.m.

Pale_Rider wrote:

"Just because it's legal doesn't mean you should do it."

"There is a higher authority than the law. It's called a moral code. Example; it may be legal to let a door close in someone's face, but a person with a moral code will hold the door open for the person right behind them. It's not all about YOU. Comprende?"

You're absolutely right, of course, Pale_Rider.

But this little tag team you're dealing with will never comprende. It IS all about THEM and their widdle "rights." Nauseating, I know, for two grown "men" to be so self-centered. But, there you have it.

There's no point in bringing up salient points about the 1st Amendment, the historical context in which it was written, or the intent of the founders (and how appalled most of them would probably be if they saw how that amendment is now misused).

There's no point in bringing up the fact that the concern was about things like freedom of expression in relation to criticism of the government and separation of Church and State.

They like the kind of country where people are callous, insensitive a**holes who only care about their perceived "right" to see somebody's suicide or horrible accident, regardless of how it affects anybody else, whether it be the friends and families of the person in question, or the psyches of young children who might see it. Does anybody NEED to see it? Is there any good REASON for it to be shown? No and no.

But people who are egocentric, with no proper sense of boundaries, an inflated sense of their own importance, and no respect for the privacy of others become utterly enraged at the words, "It's none of your business."

Most people in this country have been fed such a steady diet of murder and mayhem by the local TV "body count" news and TV shows since birth that they just can't imagine how it could 'possibly' be a bad thing. Click over to the TV listings and check out the incredibly original plot for any given crime drama, on any given night. Lemme guess: A serial killer is raping and killing women. What a surprise! It's been the same damn show, EVERY show, EVERY week, for DECADES.

But seeing all this s*** couldn't POSSIBLY be BAD for people, could it? After all, it's the TRUTH!

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_families/children_and_tv_violence

http://www.apa.org/pi/vio&tv.html

http://www.apa.org/releases/media_violence.html

http://www.ridgenet.org/szaflik/tvrating.htm

The examples are endless. This incident was one more death that didn't need to be shown on TV.

Grow up, people. Your inability to see beyond the end of your noses and acknowledge how detrimental these images are to the American psyche is a testament to your egocentricity.

Disagree all you like. It just makes you look like immature, uncivilized asses.

0

David Dodd Nov. 3, 2009 @ 10:03 p.m.

With all due respect, AG, according to the article, the reporter wasn't there to catch someone falling to their death, the reporter was there to take a photograph of a scene that closed a freeway in both directions.

I'm in no mood to witness death and blood and so on, but I can't believe in some moral code defined by whomever is in charge of morality at the moment. It's like NASCAR. I don't like NASCAR, it bores the hell out of me, but the millions of people who watch it are mostly interested in the car crashes. Should NASCAR be banned in order to protect that fragile American psyche?

0

tinastar Nov. 3, 2009 @ 11:01 p.m.

so if someone wants to kill/try to kill themselves in a public place infront of everyone, including children who would be traumatized, its tragic. But if I want to film it for the rest of the people who's day wasn't interrupted by this selfish person to see, it's wrong? by the way pale_rider it's not called moral code, it's called common decency. there is a differene

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 3, 2009 @ 11:29 p.m.

But seeing all this s*** couldn't POSSIBLY be BAD for people, could it? After all, it's the TRUTH!

http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_f...

http://www.apa.org/pi/vio&tv.html

http://www.apa.org/releases/media_violen...

http://www.ridgenet.org/szaflik/tvrating...

The examples are endless. This incident was one more death that didn't need to be shown on TV.

Grow up, people. Your inability to see beyond the end of your noses and acknowledge how detrimental these images are to the American psyche is a testament to your egocentricity.

Disagree all you like. It just makes you look like immature, uncivilized asses.

By antigeekess

I swear, I have never seen some one as uninformed as you are with arrogance out the a$$ and tries to back up her view with studies that purport to be "fact" when in reality they are just opinions, some severely biased.

I can post studies all day long too, doesn’t make it true.

0

PistolPete Nov. 3, 2009 @ 11:35 p.m.

That's the fun of junk science,SP. :-D

0

SurfPuppy619 Nov. 4, 2009 @ 1:02 a.m.

That's the fun of junk science,SP. :-D

By PistolPete

Yep, yopu kind find stuff all over the internet to back up just about any view there is.

There is a lawyer in Orange County still claiming Obama is not leaglly the President ( a "birther")!

http://totalbuzz.freedomblogging.com/files/2009/10/taitz-fine.pdf

0

David Dodd Nov. 4, 2009 @ 1:21 a.m.

"so if someone wants to kill/try to kill themselves in a public place infront of everyone, including children who would be traumatized, its tragic. But if I want to film it for the rest of the people who's day wasn't interrupted by this selfish person to see, it's wrong? by the way pale_rider it's not called moral code, it's called common decency. there is a differene"

Yeah, pretty much this. Reporters report, this is their jobs, and if they're really, really good at it, it's to get every scrap of information that they can. After that, they write, and include all of those details, including pictures. After that, they submit to an editor. The editor decides what's in good taste and what isn't. Editors decide what you read in a newspaper. Not reporters, not cops.

If a video cameraperson records someone falling to their death, and the local news decides to air it, I blame the news editor, not the cameraperson. As for my own tastes, I don't watch television much, and never the news, because that's the best way to change their stupid practices.

0

SDaniels Nov. 4, 2009 @ 4:50 a.m.

As usual, this has degraded into a shouting match over the first amendment, and free speech. Pete and Gringo, can you ever consider any finer, subtle points about social interaction that do not necessarily end with an assertion of the finality of this right?

Pale_Rider was, I believe, responding to SurfPuppy’s example in #10: “in public everyone is free game. Ask any papperazzi.”

When I attended UCSD, I used to walk over to the glider port, and descend the cliff paths to Black’s Beach, to sit on the beach and study and eat my bagged lunch. It was such a great idea, I couldn’t understand why I was the only one to do it until the resident pervs started circling like vultures—yes, some with cameras. They would keep juuust a few feet away, and park their asses to watch me, and see if there was any possiblity of my removing my school clothes (No chance of that--I never wore even a bathing suit, as I had always come from class).

Enjoyment of this natural paradise became impossible; I tried sitting near the lifeguards at the south end of the beach, but it didn’t really help. The lifeguards were sick of this situation, too. They could not just call the cops every time a perv started jacking off looking at a woman—that action being identifiably illegal. So the beach was left to the pervs, and the rest of us had to stay away, or suffer their continual harrassment.

Princess Diana was killed because of the ‘rights’ of papparazzi to hound her and her boyfriend. Sure, there are questions about the driver’s blood alcohol levels, and they were speeding in a dangerous area, but is this kind of harrassment ok with you personally—so celeb stalkers and gossip mongers can look at photos on TMZ?

What if your family were being chased night and day for pictures, by parasites who sell candid photos of you for $100 a pop—or for millions?

As for violence or sex on TV—I am for unrestrained freedom of expression in the media, but again, Pale_Rider’s and AG’s point is not about the first amendment, it is about a basic respect of other people.

Gringo, you have frequently lauded the more civilized behavior of Mexicans toward one another, and noted the lack of such in American society. What if Mexicans went around saying “F You” to each other, my a-hole behavior is protected by law? Shouting racial epithets, just because speech is protected?

The fact is that most important of your Libertarian or anarchic ideals cannot be realized without the kind of unregulated ‘moral code’ Pale_Rider referred to—better characterized, as tinastar did, as common social decency. I guess my own ideal would be more modest: People allow each other some personal space, and use common courtesy and basic respect of others, as we are taught as children, presumably, and expected to use as ADULTS.

0

ironcross Nov. 4, 2009 @ 6:18 p.m.

Here is the San Diego Sheriff's Media Guidelines. This counts for any area witch SDSD works in.

http://www.sdsheriff.net/newsroom/media_guide.pdf

0

alwayschauntie April 17, 2012 @ 8:18 p.m.

you insensitive pieces of shit. that jumper that u video typed has a name, it's JESSICA. She's a mother, which means her childred could one day see this pathethic attempt to amuse urself. anyways jessica was a very very good friend of mine and i love and miss her. she was one of the downest chicks ever. She was an awesome person. i just don't see how the cops actually got away with not saving her. she hung from the outside of that fence over the freeway for a couple hours at least and not one freaking time did any of the emergency personal think, "Hey, maybe we should get a ladder or an air bag." instead they just let her try to CLIMB back over the fence again by herself after deciding not to jump. SHE WAS PROBABLY TIRED, FREAKING IDIOTS. I LOVE YOU JESSICA AND I MISS THE HELL OUT OF YOU MY FRIEND.

0

Sign in to comment