It's not like he sent out an email that was in any way suggestive. I can understand the controversy about whether or not crash victims should be photographed at all, or whether photos which might be considered incriminating, embarassing, or inappropriate should be passed around.
However, do y'all think there is no genuine counterargument that training and improvement of rescue operations requires study of past rescue situations, which is best done when the past rescues are well documented (as with photos)? Certainly, a fire chief is not a medical doctor, but there is a general understanding that within a medical community, photos of patients can be acceptible if the patient is unidentifiable (e.g. face not shown) and the photos are being used for education or consultation. How else will you teach new fire-rescue personnel how to approach a scene in which a car is iwrapped around a tree? Slam cars into trees as a training exercise, or use photos and recreations? And how can you review performance unless you keep records and review them?