@@mylamberfeeties875 a pedestrian runs out in front of your car. Not your fault but you have video of it from your dash cam. The media wants it so would you give it to them knowing when you do you will have no control of it it will be used or edited? Think about it.
The fact that they don't want the video released tells us all we need to know. They would have quickly showed it without prompting if it supported their position in anyway. I feel terrible for the victim's family.
This isn’t a lawsuit by the family of the decedent. There isn’t any contention by the family that the Club did anything wrong. There wasn’t supposed to be a lifeguard there. This hearing is literally just because a media outlet wants the video for their own use and profit. The only reason the judge is allowing the media to have the tape is because the Athletic Club is contesting the Health Districts recent change to remove their exemption of not needing a lifeguard. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any grounds to release it to the media.
@@yeah_right88 they weren’t required to have a lifeguard. The woman knew there was no lifeguard and unfortunately died in the pool. What law did they violate. And you feel terrible for the family, well tell me how it helped the family to have the news release the video of the woman drowning so it could be shared all over the Internet?
members aren't supposed to monitor safety of the pool, the management is. why do they have cameras if they can't be used? you can record me being "bad" but when you are it's not available?
It’s a private business and a private pool. They have an exemption - as many clubs do - to not need a lifeguard. This isn’t a lawsuit by the family of decedent. The only reason the judge is allowing the media to have the tape is because the Athletic Club is contesting the Health Districts recent change to remove their exemption. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any grounds to release it to the media.
@@leward7788 It’s the point. Legally they shouldn’t have to share the recording. It’s the same right any business has. The judge is making a pretty big stretch as it is by granting access to it, with the reasoning simply tied to the fact that the health department is involved, thus vaguely making it a public matter. It would be like me asking you, “well why didn’t you just let the cop search your car without a warrant? You got something to hide?” It’s about defending your rights. The Athletic Club isn’t under any suspicion for doing anything wrong, allowing a media company access to show off a video of someone tragically dying in your pool is never good for business.
I don't care if the pool is public or private. If a member has use of a pool and takes over 20 minutes to DROWN in it and there's video of that drowning, it should be made available to the court and the public. The fact that there aren't lifeguards on duty in such a large club's pool is really sad. The fact that the club is trying to hide the video tells me everything I need to know. They actually tried to say that members present in the gym didn't see it happen so that means they aren't liable which is laughable.
Where is personal responsibility? You know there is no lifeguard so you assume the risk. And while the government may have a right to the video the public doesn’t. Government should not compel a private business or person to share their private property. Would you be willing to share your phone videos with the public? I wouldn’t.
@@rantsfromthesofa4653 A TWENTY MINUTE video of a DROWNING in a PRIVATE club's pool? Absolutely! There 100% WILL be a warrant for it. That's an interesting take but you are entitled to your opinion.
This isn’t a lawsuit by the family of the decedent. There isn’t any contention by the family that the Club did anything wrong. There wasn’t supposed to be a lifeguard there. This hearing is literally just because a media outlet wants the video for their own use and profit. The only reason the judge is allowing the media to have the tape is because the Athletic Club is contesting the Health Districts recent change to remove their exemption of not needing a lifeguard. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any grounds to release it to the media.
@@darvoid66 the government can get a copy of the video. Not arguing that. But the public has no right to it. If there is a lawsuit then the plaintiffs may be able to obtain it but again not the public.
@@tvviewer4500 The thing is no matter if the person can swim or not an employee didn't do their job. The point of this news video is the fact that the gym doesn't want to release the footage. We don't know if the person could swim or if it was a medical emergency. Showing the public the video is admitting that the person who was supposed to be watching the pool wasn't doing their job.
To everyone who doesn’t understand what’s occurring here: This isn’t a lawsuit from the decedents family. A news station simply wants the video so they can show it, and the Southern Nevada Health District was going to release it to them. The gym just doesn’t want that to occur for obvious reasons, it’s detrimental to business. There isn’t any concern over the gym being at fault, the lady drowned in a pool that isn’t supposed to have lifeguards. The Southern Nevada Health District has changed the Las Vegas Athletic Clubs exemption to needing a lifeguard after this event, which the Athletic Club is contesting. It’s very normal for athletic clubs, wellness centers etc to have exemptions from needing lifeguards. These aren’t public pools, they’re private pools where waivers have been signed and access is limited. The judge here is saying that because the LVAC is contesting the exemption change that the news media should be able to request the video and the public be able to view it, since it involves the public health department. That’s all.
It’s a private business. The only reason the judge allowed the video to be released is because the Club is suing the Health District because they are trying to change their exemption to not needing lifeguards. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any legal basis for releasing the video.
Judge "blew it"! Private property, not "open to the public"! One "regulating agency" used the video to change a rule, which very possibly would have happened without the video anyway! The video was NOT used in a trial, or criminal prosecution! It is not "public domain"!
Great ruling that video is certainly public and an essential part of transparency for the case verifying what’s being said and watching exactly what happened. 🥃✅ Great ruling judge protecting the integrity of the news, the reporters the case and all of the above
Let me add one more thing, if the video is NOT entered as evidence or used in a court case then you have ZERO right to access the video. Thank you, that is all.
I don’t understand why there was not a buddy system in place, we have a health pool in our local hospital for heat treatment nobody is allowed to enter without a swim buddy. All public and gym pools must have an active life guard on duty when the pool is open to the public or in the gym when it’s open to its members here in Australia. The only place you won’t find life guards is along rivers and beach fronts. They are there during the peak seasons at the most popular beach’s, lakes and rivers. The fact it took 20 minutes for this woman to drown with nobody monitoring the cctv at the gym is wrong, the fact other gym members were not in the pool area while she was there was wrong too. I hope the family sue the gym. It’s why we have the buddy system here in Australia just so this sort of thing does not happen.
I guess only if you're a billionaire NFL owner can you prohibit videos from being used against you, even if it's being used against you in a criminal case against an illegal "Massage parlor."
This isn’t a lawsuit by the family of the decedent. There isn’t any contention by the family that the Club did anything wrong. There wasn’t supposed to be a lifeguard there. This hearing is literally just because a media outlet wants the video for their own use and profit. The only reason the judge is allowing the media to have the tape is because the Athletic Club is contesting the Health Districts recent change to remove their exemption of not needing a lifeguard. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any grounds to release it to the media.
I believe that the club's paying (or freely admitted) members are also members of the public and not all of them could be present at the same time to have witnessed the events in the pool on the day of the incident, informing them (and us at large) as fully as possible is obviously in the public interest. Only if the members were owned by the club would it be a private matter and I believe slavery is illegal both federally in the USA and also the state of Nevada and I expect the company's lawyers were not vigorous or bold enough to arguing that defense.
The question is is if a device is owned by a company that records the truth of actions that it can observe. Is the truth collected by that camera specifically owned by someone? Allowed to be restrained or suppressed by the person who owns the camera. Or is it that the truth that is caught by that camera is owned by all of us by everyone? Innocence or guilt. The camera and what it collected shows the truth. That is not for sale and it is not behind a paywall. If it ever did become that way, we're one step closer to being farm animals.
That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard, just because members of the public don't react doesn't make that an excuse for your staff not to react. Let's hope the victims family sue this gym and they go out of business, probably find they didn't have the right type of insurance. That's why the dumb argument.
Not defending LVAC, but the same judge would probably rule completely different on releasing government videos (dashcam, bodycam, taxpayer funded buildings). FOIA requests can get you a lot of stuff, but they can still block it if it's "in the public's best interest", i.e., keep our officers from facing real trouble.
She could barely get into the pool, how did she think she was going to get out? The fact is she would have had to ask several men to help get her out and that's not right. Sad and was a very scary thing.. Individuals need to care for themselves so these terrible things don't happen. The people blaming the gym for no lifeguards... they are shallow pools and for adults... not a lot of exposure there. Also if they did employ lifeguards, what would be the physical requirements? Able to pull someone out of the water 3 times your size? Guess if they had 6 lifeguards they may be able to get a person like this out of the pool before death.
Does the business require public safety inspections to operate. Then it is under the public eye. Unsafe pool... unsafe business. Drowning and no one did a damn thing...... negligence.😢😢😢😢
If a Private Company is allowed to have security cameras, tho those cameras intended purpose is for security/loss prevention, but when those cameras make recordings OF the public, then those recordings should automatically be considered Public Record. Opposed to security cameras that are in a place like a private closed to the public warehouse. The closed to the public warehouse recordings are not public record Unless they are evidence of a crime that is being tried in the public courts. Once used for evidence, those recordings also become public records.
By your own reasoning, the videos are private! The pool is NOT "open to the public"! It is private property and membership is required to enter! And, FYI, no "crime occurred there", and no prosecution took place! Only "rules" changed which could have happened with or without the video....
The video is available now. ruclips.net/video/xZ-I4ImfTwQ/видео.html It's crazy to see people walk right by her as she struggles to get up and is blocking the stairs. And, when she's floating lifeless on her back for almost 20(?) minutes...
In America people are not friendly here no one says high when thry see new ppl but in other tourism countries we say hi to everyone we see from our eyes ij clubs or on the beach
The judge accurately said it was used to determine the outcome of a public decision. Once it’s used as evidence, it has to be released otherwise courts could hide evidence used against citizens. You benefit from that stance, greatly!
The business might be private but once something becomes evidence it becomes public otherwise the govt could do more shady stuff and violate our rights. Transparency is always better than hiding wrong doing....
The ACLU recently sued Clark county family courts for public access and won. They were sealing all records and keeping people tied up in court for years. Making people pay for unscrupulous unqualified outsourced providers. Im at nearly 14 years of family court with a violent abuser. Public access is important in all our courts.
Nice bit of one sided reporting. Where is the spokesperson for the health club? Civil matters do have TWO SIDES. Does the word integrity mean anything to this station?
The video was used in a public hearing to determine how the woman drown, it became public property the minute it was used in a court hearing. Business will still keep recording because if they don’t they will be held liable if there is an accident, but if they can prove it was not an accident then they are not liable, if they have the footage showing an accident and it was the victims fault, they cannot be held liable. On the other hand if there is no footage to prove it otherwise they WILL be held liable whether they like it or not. That’s why corporations, shopping centres, gyms and so many private clubs of public areas will always have CCTV setup. The only places the CCTV cannot be placed is inside the change rooms, toilets and bathrooms only stationed outside of the entry ways to them.
![Yeat & Summrs - GO2WORK [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/NEFEwfPcXRA/mqdefault.jpg)
Why block the video? If they are innocent why hide it? That alone is creepy
@mylamberfeeties875 it's called "strategy". The only comments on here have been stupid. Are people truly this dumb?
Wreak. Wreak. If you’re going to throw around insults it’s important to not give the comments section any indication that you’re being a hypocrite.
@@digitalpunk5365 what are you talking about? I am insulting no one by asking a simple question. What does wreak mean?
@@mylamberfeeties875 the person who was insulting you removed their comment
@@mylamberfeeties875 a pedestrian runs out in front of your car. Not your fault but you have video of it from your dash cam. The media wants it so would you give it to them knowing when you do you will have no control of it it will be used or edited? Think about it.
The fact that they don't want the video released tells us all we need to know.
They would have quickly showed it without prompting if it supported their position in anyway.
I feel terrible for the victim's family.
This isn’t a lawsuit by the family of the decedent. There isn’t any contention by the family that the Club did anything wrong. There wasn’t supposed to be a lifeguard there.
This hearing is literally just because a media outlet wants the video for their own use and profit.
The only reason the judge is allowing the media to have the tape is because the Athletic Club is contesting the Health Districts recent change to remove their exemption of not needing a lifeguard. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any grounds to release it to the media.
@@yeah_right88 they weren’t required to have a lifeguard. The woman knew there was no lifeguard and unfortunately died in the pool. What law did they violate. And you feel terrible for the family, well tell me how it helped the family to have the news release the video of the woman drowning so it could be shared all over the Internet?
members aren't supposed to monitor safety of the pool, the management is. why do they have cameras if they can't be used? you can record me being "bad" but when you are it's not available?
It’s a private business and a private pool. They have an exemption - as many clubs do - to not need a lifeguard. This isn’t a lawsuit by the family of decedent.
The only reason the judge is allowing the media to have the tape is because the Athletic Club is contesting the Health Districts recent change to remove their exemption. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any grounds to release it to the media.
@@JimYeats that doesn't explain the refusal to share the recording - what are they worried about?
@@leward7788 It’s the point. Legally they shouldn’t have to share the recording. It’s the same right any business has. The judge is making a pretty big stretch as it is by granting access to it, with the reasoning simply tied to the fact that the health department is involved, thus vaguely making it a public matter.
It would be like me asking you, “well why didn’t you just let the cop search your car without a warrant? You got something to hide?”
It’s about defending your rights. The Athletic Club isn’t under any suspicion for doing anything wrong, allowing a media company access to show off a video of someone tragically dying in your pool is never good for business.
@@JimYeats if it exonerated them, then why not? c'mon you can't be that obtuse
@@JimYeatswell said
Someone’s hiding something when they don’t want the video out
That judge is a keeper.
Thank you for fighting for transparency for the public. This is part of the backbone of our country.
I don't care if the pool is public or private. If a member has use of a pool and takes over 20 minutes to DROWN in it and there's video of that drowning, it should be made available to the court and the public. The fact that there aren't lifeguards on duty in such a large club's pool is really sad. The fact that the club is trying to hide the video tells me everything I need to know. They actually tried to say that members present in the gym didn't see it happen so that means they aren't liable which is laughable.
Where is personal responsibility? You know there is no lifeguard so you assume the risk. And while the government may have a right to the video the public doesn’t. Government should not compel a private business or person to share their private property. Would you be willing to share your phone videos with the public? I wouldn’t.
@@rantsfromthesofa4653 A TWENTY MINUTE video of a DROWNING in a PRIVATE club's pool? Absolutely! There 100% WILL be a warrant for it. That's an interesting take but you are entitled to your opinion.
This isn’t a lawsuit by the family of the decedent. There isn’t any contention by the family that the Club did anything wrong. There wasn’t supposed to be a lifeguard there.
This hearing is literally just because a media outlet wants the video for their own use and profit.
The only reason the judge is allowing the media to have the tape is because the Athletic Club is contesting the Health Districts recent change to remove their exemption of not needing a lifeguard. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any grounds to release it to the media.
@@darvoid66 the government can get a copy of the video. Not arguing that. But the public has no right to it. If there is a lawsuit then the plaintiffs may be able to obtain it but again not the public.
@@rantsfromthesofa4653 I'm okay with that too.
They let that woman pass away.
They aren't responsible the least bit.
The that woman let her self pass away…. Learn how to swim before going swimming
@@Tidings32 Either they walked away from the monitor they were supposed to be watching or they sat there and didn't help her.
@@tvviewer4500 The thing is no matter if the person can swim or not an employee didn't do their job. The point of this news video is the fact that the gym doesn't want to release the footage. We don't know if the person could swim or if it was a medical emergency. Showing the public the video is admitting that the person who was supposed to be watching the pool wasn't doing their job.
@@GoldenAuraLife literally no life guards on duty and patrons in the area didn’t stop to help her dude so what is your point.
To everyone who doesn’t understand what’s occurring here:
This isn’t a lawsuit from the decedents family. A news station simply wants the video so they can show it, and the Southern Nevada Health District was going to release it to them. The gym just doesn’t want that to occur for obvious reasons, it’s detrimental to business.
There isn’t any concern over the gym being at fault, the lady drowned in a pool that isn’t supposed to have lifeguards. The Southern Nevada Health District has changed the Las Vegas Athletic Clubs exemption to needing a lifeguard after this event, which the Athletic Club is contesting. It’s very normal for athletic clubs, wellness centers etc to have exemptions from needing lifeguards. These aren’t public pools, they’re private pools where waivers have been signed and access is limited.
The judge here is saying that because the LVAC is contesting the exemption change that the news media should be able to request the video and the public be able to view it, since it involves the public health department.
That’s all.
Good on 8 News Now for suing to get those records!
Anytime public funds are taken, it's public record
It’s a private business. The only reason the judge allowed the video to be released is because the Club is suing the Health District because they are trying to change their exemption to not needing lifeguards. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any legal basis for releasing the video.
'Why do you want to suppress the video?'
'Because it's devastating to our case!'
Yes, the judge allowed it.
Judge "blew it"! Private property, not "open to the public"! One "regulating agency" used the video to change a rule, which very possibly would have happened without the video anyway! The video was NOT used in a trial, or criminal prosecution! It is not "public domain"!
The only reason to withhold the video is to cover something up.
they're hiding something
Great ruling that video is certainly public and an essential part of transparency for the case verifying what’s being said and watching exactly what happened. 🥃✅
Great ruling judge protecting the integrity of the news, the reporters the case and all of the above
An adult made a decision to swim in a pool without a lifeguard. Club not at fault.
ALL COURTS SHALL BE PUBLIC! If the video is entered as evidence then it is public information.
Let me add one more thing, if the video is NOT entered as evidence or used in a court case then you have ZERO right to access the video. Thank you, that is all.
I don’t understand why there was not a buddy system in place, we have a health pool in our local hospital for heat treatment nobody is allowed to enter without a swim buddy. All public and gym pools must have an active life guard on duty when the pool is open to the public or in the gym when it’s open to its members here in Australia. The only place you won’t find life guards is along rivers and beach fronts. They are there during the peak seasons at the most popular beach’s, lakes and rivers.
The fact it took 20 minutes for this woman to drown with nobody monitoring the cctv at the gym is wrong, the fact other gym members were not in the pool area while she was there was wrong too. I hope the family sue the gym. It’s why we have the buddy system here in Australia just so this sort of thing does not happen.
I guess only if you're a billionaire NFL owner can you prohibit videos from being used against you, even if it's being used against you in a criminal case against an illegal "Massage parlor."
When you fear integrity and accountability, you are NOT the good guys.
In future, video viewing may become a live viewing event, without video recording
No Lifeguard.
Ok and your point is?
@@mikepalmer1971 The fact you are asking tells me no matter how simply it could be explained to you I doubt you would ever get it.
@@secondchance6603 There does not have to be a lifeguard genius. If you cannot swim don’t go in the water. Genius.
@@mikepalmer1971 Because you think only people who cannot swim can drown? Genius,
@@chaschoune lol
Such a bad move. I bet it isn’t even that video. There is something else they are worried about being found, and they just waved a giant red flag.
This isn’t a lawsuit by the family of the decedent. There isn’t any contention by the family that the Club did anything wrong. There wasn’t supposed to be a lifeguard there.
This hearing is literally just because a media outlet wants the video for their own use and profit.
The only reason the judge is allowing the media to have the tape is because the Athletic Club is contesting the Health Districts recent change to remove their exemption of not needing a lifeguard. Otherwise there wouldn’t be any grounds to release it to the media.
Transparency
I believe that the club's paying (or freely admitted) members are also members of the public and not all of them could be present at the same time to have witnessed the events in the pool on the day of the incident, informing them (and us at large) as fully as possible is obviously in the public interest. Only if the members were owned by the club would it be a private matter and I believe slavery is illegal both federally in the USA and also the state of Nevada and I expect the company's lawyers were not vigorous or bold enough to arguing that defense.
They were so self absorbed to care for that woman. They would have cared if she looked like a model.
Sad. Also erasing video evidence is a crime.
Vegas keep being Vegas
The question is is if a device is owned by a company that records the truth of actions that it can observe. Is the truth collected by that camera specifically owned by someone? Allowed to be restrained or suppressed by the person who owns the camera. Or is it that the truth that is caught by that camera is owned by all of us by everyone? Innocence or guilt. The camera and what it collected shows the truth. That is not for sale and it is not behind a paywall. If it ever did become that way, we're one step closer to being farm animals.
It’s a new chapter at LVAC , chapter 11 😂😂😂😂
That is the dumbest argument I have ever heard, just because members of the public don't react doesn't make that an excuse for your staff not to react. Let's hope the victims family sue this gym and they go out of business, probably find they didn't have the right type of insurance. That's why the dumb argument.
Not defending LVAC, but the same judge would probably rule completely different on releasing government videos (dashcam, bodycam, taxpayer funded buildings). FOIA requests can get you a lot of stuff, but they can still block it if it's "in the public's best interest", i.e., keep our officers from facing real trouble.
Did they really say there was no lifeguard?
Creeps!
Just another day in paradise.
They should have taken this case to judge Cannon
If you don't know how to swim.... Stay TF out of the water.
Gym: "We want to hide the truth!!"
Judge: "Oh hell no! The truth shall set you free. We seek justice, not run from it."
FOIA. 😮
aways have LG
She could barely get into the pool, how did she think she was going to get out? The fact is she would have had to ask several men to help get her out and that's not right. Sad and was a very scary thing.. Individuals need to care for themselves so these terrible things don't happen. The people blaming the gym for no lifeguards... they are shallow pools and for adults... not a lot of exposure there. Also if they did employ lifeguards, what would be the physical requirements? Able to pull someone out of the water 3 times your size? Guess if they had 6 lifeguards they may be able to get a person like this out of the pool before death.
Why does the public need to see a snuff movie?
Does the business require public safety inspections to operate.
Then it is under the public eye.
Unsafe pool... unsafe business.
Drowning and no one did a damn thing...... negligence.😢😢😢😢
If a Private Company is allowed to have security cameras, tho those cameras intended purpose is for security/loss prevention, but when those cameras make recordings OF the public, then those recordings should automatically be considered Public Record.
Opposed to security cameras that are in a place like a private closed to the public warehouse. The closed to the public warehouse recordings are not public record Unless they are evidence of a crime that is being tried in the public courts. Once used for evidence, those recordings also become public records.
By your own reasoning, the videos are private! The pool is NOT "open to the public"! It is private property and membership is required to enter! And, FYI, no "crime occurred there", and no prosecution took place! Only "rules" changed which could have happened with or without the video....
The video is available now. ruclips.net/video/xZ-I4ImfTwQ/видео.html
It's crazy to see people walk right by her as she struggles to get up and is blocking the stairs. And, when she's floating lifeless on her back for almost 20(?) minutes...
In America people are not friendly here no one says high when thry see new ppl but in other tourism countries we say hi to everyone we see from our eyes ij clubs or on the beach
Its not “public” especially when you are paying a membership fee.
The judge accurately said it was used to determine the outcome of a public decision. Once it’s used as evidence, it has to be released otherwise courts could hide evidence used against citizens. You benefit from that stance, greatly!
The business might be private but once something becomes evidence it becomes public otherwise the govt could do more shady stuff and violate our rights. Transparency is always better than hiding wrong doing....
The ACLU recently sued Clark county family courts for public access and won. They were sealing all records and keeping people tied up in court for years. Making people pay for unscrupulous unqualified outsourced providers. Im at nearly 14 years of family court with a violent abuser. Public access is important in all our courts.
This is 🐂 swim at your own risk
Nice bit of one sided reporting. Where is the spokesperson for the health club? Civil matters do have TWO SIDES. Does the word integrity mean anything to this station?
Swim at your own risk. Lawyers ruin society.
private videos are not public record. This ruling will screw citizens over when businesses stop recording.
The video was used in a public hearing to determine how the woman drown, it became public property the minute it was used in a court hearing.
Business will still keep recording because if they don’t they will be held liable if there is an accident, but if they can prove it was not an accident then they are not liable, if they have the footage showing an accident and it was the victims fault, they cannot be held liable. On the other hand if there is no footage to prove it otherwise they WILL be held liable whether they like it or not. That’s why corporations, shopping centres, gyms and so many private clubs of public areas will always have CCTV setup. The only places the CCTV cannot be placed is inside the change rooms, toilets and bathrooms only stationed outside of the entry ways to them.
bye bye LVAC .... lol ---
liberals are so done across the country
pools not have lifeguards anymore ??