Smithers MINNEAPOLIS

i don’t care if you look.

just stay the fuck off the backside of the course.

I think they should be able to watch if they want, as long as they stay out of the way. But thats an interesting debate.

It would be interesting to hear a rescuer’s point of view - maybe you should interview Dan Casper and/or Linda Sone. I don’t know if they were involved with the bridge collapse, but I’m sure they have other experiences with dealing with gawkers.

I’d also be curious to hear from parents (including yourself) about exposing children to the collapse site - when are children old enough to understand? Obviously, if they’re really young, they don’t know what’s going on anyway. But if they’re old enough to understand, is it really good for them to see that? And at what age does it actually help them cope? I was amazed at the number of parents with children viewing the collapsed bridge last weekend at the Campus Crit.

Yes… keep a safe distance. Maintain a perimeter that allows for a safe and effective rescue/recovery effort. However, this is a bridge which was paid for with state and federal tax dollars. Therefore, as a citizen/taxpayer, let me see this GD disaster closer than from the Guthrie theater or now from the Stone Arch bridge - gee thanks.
Don’t get me started on the flag draped coffins that are prohibited from being photographed or taped - another great injustice

I think people want to look just out of morbid fascination. It makes us feel better about ourselves. Look at the Paris Hilton jail time, everyone couldn’t get enough, because it was a human train wreck, same with Anna Nicole Smith. We could sit back and say, omg, now I feel better being a fat, suburbanite nobody with an alcoholic spouse and 2 whiny annoying kids and $100k worth of credit card debt. Same with the bridge debacle, we just have to see what happened to make ourselves part of it. Then we can go to work and tell all the other cube-rats, I was at the site and I got a picture! Darned evolution, I wish I was still a monkey throwing my poo at other monkeys!

Should the public have a right to see a disaster in person so long as they are not interfering with rescue and recovery? Or should the public be kept back in order to give the rescuers breathing space and show respect for the dead and their families?
These two questions are the same in that both advocate not interfering with rescue operations. Police have every right to enforce this in no uncertain terms. The difference is showing respect. Yes, people should have respect, but you can’t really legislate that with yellow tape. The sign Gilby posted does a much better job of that!

“I wish I was still a monkey throwing my poo at other monkeys!”

Isn’t the modern version of this blog comments, skibby? I don’t give us credit for evolving as much as you think we have.

I would probably agree that most of the motivation to see the bridge is not too healthy or praiseworthy.

But that doesn’t mean people should be stopped from seeing it.

I totally reject the argument that closing the area off shows respect for the dead. If anything, it helps minimize the impact. It could be argued that we shouldn’t just have the right to see it, but the obligation to.

“Nothing to see here folks, move along.” Somebody fucked up, and people should see the results. After all, that could have been you down there! This is a public matter.

Obviously leave breathing room for the rescue workers. But there is a big distance between leaving room to work and allowing room to see it.

I’m sick of the shroud of secrecy enveloping great public fuck-ups. I completely agree that some of us need to see more legless American soldiers–we should see the results of what our elected officials are doing (or not doing).

It depends on the point in time.

Initially? Disgusting rubber-neckers only out to see if they can catch blood and guts (I do NOT mean the rescuers! They were incredible). Need to heal, my ass. “Oh, the bridge collapsed. My world will never be the same. How can I go on with my life unless I see it for myself??”. BullSHIT. How many people actually had a close one/loved one involved? The thousands of others are just the epitome of the darker side of human nature.

Now? It’s a shame they could not recover the all remains prior to having to remove the collapsed structure. It’s still a graveyard. However, I’ll bet you there would be far, far fewer people “interested” in viewing it now than when they thought they might see blood and guts. Now it is a matter of wanting to see what’s being covered up. The sheer fact that “they” obviously do not want us to see what’s going on is enough reason to suspect we SHOULD be able to see what’s going on.

The general public has a right to know and to make up their minds for themselves based on their own experiences and observations. Thus, the fact that the Stone Arch Bridge and the pedestrian bridge at the U (”Bridge #9″) were closed to onlookers was total bullshit, as neither of these bridges were a) affected by the disaster or b) structurally threatened by the disaster. They were closed simply because they could be closed, and that, friends, is an unnecessary and overreaching use (abuse) of governmental power and authority. The workers/rescuers had more than enough room to work without those two bridges being closed.

On a related topic: Are you just preparing us for your series on “free speech zones” during the Republicant National Convention next fall, Smithers?

I’m feeling both sides of this ethical debate. I didn’t realize how much it would affect me when the bridge went down. I had historic ties to that bridge as did thousands of other students at the U during the 70’s-90’s. I parked my car precisely where the West Bank end of the bridge went down. It is now a Parkway, but back ‘then’ is was a $1/day park for the whole day. I can’t imagine how many mornings I lurched up and out of my car, gazed up at the underside of the bridge and ran to catch a class I was already late for. You had to get there early or after noon, or you never got a space. I really wanted to go down and look at the places that were so familiar to me in memory. It wasn’t an issue of the victims, as much as a piece of my own experience gone forever. Landmarks are funny that way. When they are taken suddenly, it’s a wrenching of our collective memory that needs witness to reconcile. I think that most of us feel that way, and out of respect stayed a good distance away. Those without this memory felt nothing but the awe of the catastrophe, which was something in itself to behold.

Wow, I’m kind of surprised by some of the reactions here. I don’t see this whole thing as some government coverup, nor do I see the value of seeing this up close as a great teaching moment. The media images so far have shown me plenty. We have public servants down there taking care of business, and I’m more than willing to give them room to do the dirty work. So, I guess I agree with Skibby that it’s starting to get into gawking at private lives territory.

My wife used to work for the Henn. Cty Medical Examiner, and I’ve seen a small graphic window into the violence of real life murders, accidents, and suicides that most people never see. I agree that there is something to be learned from seeing this. As someone else mentioned, seeing graphic images of war also offers something to learn from. But, this is not a war or crime scene. As such, the gawking seems morbid to me.

Keeping people out of the way alows rescuers to do their job. Initially they have no idea what kind of equipment they will need of volume of people so they need a larger area. Once those uses are defined they can adjust the protected area accordingly. Or it’s all about infringing on your personal freedoms…oh ya, that’s it.

To say it doesn’t help all of us cope is tough but callous. Seeing an event like this not only forces you to take stock in your own life but it allows you to feel for the family and friends of those who were involved. If you have ever lost a loved one, then you know sometimes just kbeing aware that others are thinking about them and you helps.

I would agree with Macy as to why the perimeters changed. I suspect they were evaluating the extent of the catastrophe, establishing the dimensions of the search/recovery area and how they could best balance thru traffic, local residents’ access to their homes, and access to the scene by recovery vehicles. This is not a case of “minimizing the impact” or media secrecy/misrepresentation. It is quite self-important and typical of Americans to believe we have a “right” or a “need” to see everything firsthand.

Curiosity is normal, but we have a choice in how to respectfully satiate that curiosity. My choice is guided by how I would feel about strangers coming out to take souvenir snapshots at the scene where a close friend or relative had been killed. We also owe it to those who live nearby–many of whom were first responders and witnessed deaths firsthand, and are no doubt coping with a very direct and personal grief as a result–to allow them to regain some semblance of normalcy in their day-to-day lives.

I don’t buy the media angle on the shrinking of the perimeter. I think they just realized they didn’t need that much space any more.

I have thought of going down there a couple times, not because of morbid curiosity, more because of the historic significance, to get a sense of the size of it all. I am sure that pictures and video don’t convey the enormity of the disaster. It’s no different than travelling across the country to see a revolutionary war battle site.

As long as people aren’t getting in the way of the work, rescue and/or recovery, I think people have a right to be there as long as they aren’t in danger themselves. It’s a public area.

Why do you need to be that close in the first place? Get over it and go to the Stonearch Bridge.

“The general public has a right to know and to make up their minds for themselves
based on their own experiences and observations.” What Tuffy? Do you want a guided fucking tour? Do we need to put you in a dive suit so you can make up your own mind about what happened. Newsflash–the entirety of the 35W bridge collapsed and their are still people rotting down there. The “media” has been pretty clear about that, explicit pictures and video included. I guess I think Skibby has it right for the majority of us–our motivations for getting a look are suspect. I was driving a fire rig on the northside the day the bridge went down and our access to the site was a tight winding road. I couldn’t believe the number of people who’s interest in catching a glimpse outweighed their understanding that I needed them to get out of the way so I could get our rig on-scene. But for every 50 cellphone picture taking gawkers there was one person who was there to actually help. I figure that the formula probably stays consistent today–the majority are there for the wrong reasons, but there are those whose efforts to see are, because of their motivations, appropriate. Problem is, how can you know a person’s motivation for getting close enough to see. You can’t. I guess I like Gilby’s litmus test best–how would you feel if someone wanted to gawk on your loved one’s tragic end? If my loved one was still in the water, the last thing I’d want to see is a bunch of vultures circling.

What Tuffy? Do you want a guided fucking tour? Do we need to put you in a dive suit so you can make up your own mind about what happened. Newsflash–the entirety of the 35W bridge collapsed and their are still people rotting down there. The “media” has been pretty clear about that, explicit pictures and video included.

Congratulations on taking my comment completely out of context; I was guessing that SickDoosh would be the one to do that.

I referenced the closing of the Stone Arch bridge and Bridge #9 only. Read it again if you missed it.

Like most who have posted here, the workers/rescuers absolutely have to have the appropriate space and resources to do their work. Their work, however, had nothing to do with those two bridges I mentioned — a fact no one can deny.

I don’t like gawkers, either, and the closest I’ve personally come to the site was the hay bale I sat on while acting as a course marshall at the Campus Crit. I told several gawkers that day that they couldn’t see anything and that they’d have better luck watching TV.

Finally, this whole “respect the resting place of the dead” is extraordinarily duplicitous. If you feel that strongly about it, you better pack up your high horses and head out to NYC to tell the millions of visitors to the WTC site every year. Or, stay closer to home and venture to Clear Lake, Iowa and protest the visitors to the Buddy Holly/Big Bopper/Richie Valens crash site in a damn corn field. There are probably others I’m forgetting still closer to Mpls/StP if you want to save on gas.

Yeah Tuffy, may have read into your comment more than it merited. Guess my point was, how close is close enough? You argue for letting people “observe” and “experience” what happened. That suggest to me more than just looking from the stone arch bridge or bridge #9. When it comes down to it, you being the seeming king of high horses, all self-congratulation and sneering tone, it’s hard not to want to throw some poo, as Skibby terms it, at you.

The WTC site is now a empty spot and it’s been 6 years, we’ve identified the victims, the Buddy Holly Corn field is 50 years old, we’ve identified the victims. The bridge collapse has been a week, there are still unidentified missing people down there. It’s DIFFERENT

If you read the article closely, they were “identifying” remains, previously pulled out. And if you click on the link in the article, there weren’t any remains left in the WTC site, they were actually searching on surrounding roads. Nevertheless, my point was that there had been sufficient time to go through the grieving process, in the Mpls case, 1 week is not enough….

For the record… I’m with Tuffy. The closing of the Stone arch bridge and #9 were because they could and wanted to exact the long arm of the law on the general public once again.
I certainly disagree with the reason most people want to see the devastation. It isn’t morbid fascination, but merely a curiosity as to how and why an interstate bridge in the US, and more shockingly Minnesota, can collapse in an instant. This type of disaster is somewhat accepted in a third world country, or even in Asia somewhere, but not here. There are and were no bodies to see so a simple “move along folks” would suffice. However, the Mpls police and fire “official” self- righteousness is humorous.
Skibby, I always knew you were “whacked” but you probably side with the current Gov’t. position on photographing bodies of the fallen heros of a war of convenience - not necessity. If John Q. public was more involved and permitted to know and see the truth through their own experience, we may have better government representation at all levels.
Given the former, the rescuers and officials have every right and expectation that the public will and should allow those whose job it is to accomplish these difficult tasks to do so without compromise. But unless and until the public makes it unsafe to view from a reasonable distance,.. fill in the blank!

I am whacked and I don’t know what the gov’t position is on photographing bodies of the fallen heos of a war of convenience-not necessity. But FWIW, I’m against this war. I am not a pawn of the govt, I am a free thinking libertarian, I have not drank the kool-aid. And trust me, it is morbid curiosity.

Skibby, just so your not whacking in public it all good.

From CNN:

Martin criticized “scam artists” who have appeared at the scene looking to cash in on the disaster. He said one man, a former Coast Guard member, had been charged with trespassing and interfering with an investigation after repeatedly trying to sell sonar equipment to searchers.

A second man was detained after passing himself off as a bridge-construction consultant to gain access to the site, Martin said.

“That’s something we’re getting a little tired of, dealing with these people,” Martin said.