People these days would rather record someone than help them

  • 113 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3

This topic is locked from further discussion.

#1 Posted by JustSignedUp (1148 posts) -

people-nowadays-drowning-man-taking-phot

This douchebag who took this picture, actually had the time to pull out his phone, fumble through the huge list of apps, find the camera app... Let the camera start up, and press shoot. People these days would rather have a 1,000,000 view youtube video or get a picture than help someone.

Full story here:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/disturbing-york-post-photo-man-crushed-subway-train-112000137.html

121204_BEH_NYpostcover.jpg.CROP.article9

#2 Posted by konvikt_17 (22253 posts) -

Hell Yea!

Its all about those Youtube views!

#3 Posted by chaoscougar1 (36824 posts) -
"The newspaper describes Abbasi as a "Post freelance photographer," and quotes him as claiming that he was trying to warn the subway conductor with his camera's flash." What a fvcking grub
#4 Posted by VanHelsingBoA64 (5455 posts) -

people-nowadays-drowning-man-taking-phot

JustSignedUp

what's with their clothes? r they in prison?

#5 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -

people-nowadays-drowning-man-taking-phot

This douchebag who took this picture, actually had the time to pull out his phone, fumble through the huge list of apps, find the camera app... Let the camera start up, and press shoot. People these days would rather have a 1,000,000 view youtube video or get a picture than help someone.

Full story here:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/disturbing-york-post-photo-man-crushed-subway-train-112000137.html

121204_BEH_NYpostcover.jpg.CROP.article9

JustSignedUp
Well, the thing is, it's hard to condemn the man without knowing some details. Such as... 1) Where was he in relation to the victim when the victim when the victim got pushed onto the tracks? 2) Where was the train in relation to the victim when the victim got pushed onto the tracks. Was it even POSSIBLE for the photographer to reach the victim in time? 3) Did he have his phone in his pocket when the victim got pushed onto the tracks? Or is that just an assumption? It's already stated that he's a photographer. So it's not exactly all that implausible that he already had his camera app running when the victim got pushed onto the tracks. Whether or not anyone knows, is that mere speculation, or is it a verifiable fact?
#6 Posted by CleanPlayer (9822 posts) -
Man, wtf is up with New York Post putting up that picture? Like seriously? Jeez, family of Ki Suk Han must feel terrible about all of this
#7 Posted by theone86 (20555 posts) -

Psychology has actually explained this long ago. The principle is that if there is a situation where someone is in need of help and other people around everybody thinks that someone else is going to help so nobody actually helps. Guy gets mugged in a large crowd, people do nothing. Guy gets mugged in a dark alley, the lone person present will probably help. The takeaway, if you're going to get mugged then do it when very few people are around.

#8 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -

Psychology has actually explained this long ago. The principle is that if there is a situation where someone is in need of help and other people around everybody thinks that someone else is going to help so nobody actually helps. Guy gets mugged in a large crowd, people do nothing. Guy gets mugged in a dark alley, the lone person present will probably help. The takeaway, if you're going to get mugged then do it when very few people are around.

theone86
Here's the thing, though. If that's really the reason why the photographer didn't help the victim, then that means that there were other people around. So...why are we singling out the photographer here? The question goes from "why didn't the photographer help the victim" to "why didn't ANYONE help the victim?" We're not bashing everyone who was there, we're just bashing one person who was there. The photographer, who took a picture instead of helping the victim. Here's the problem: it's diverting the issue away from the REAL problem (nobody helped the victim) towards a completely bull$*** problem (instead of just watching the guy die, this man actually took a picture). And I think we have to stay on focus here. IF there was a problem with the bystanders' actions, then that problem is "not helping the dude". That's the ONLY problem. What people did WHILE not helping the dude is completely f***ing irrelevant. If this dude failed to act because there were other people there who he thought would act, then it's pretty misguided to direct anger towards this ONE GUY just because he happened to be the one complacent bystander who actually got pictures.
#9 Posted by JigglyWiggly_ (23608 posts) -
[QUOTE="theone86"]

Psychology has actually explained this long ago. The principle is that if there is a situation where someone is in need of help and other people around everybody thinks that someone else is going to help so nobody actually helps. Guy gets mugged in a large crowd, people do nothing. Guy gets mugged in a dark alley, the lone person present will probably help. The takeaway, if you're going to get mugged then do it when very few people are around.

MrGeezer
Here's the thing, though. If that's really the reason why the photographer didn't help the victim, then that means that there were other people around. So...why are we singling out the photographer here? The question goes from "why didn't the photographer help the victim" to "why didn't ANYONE help the victim?" We're not bashing everyone who was there, we're just bashing one person who was there. The photographer, who took a picture instead of helping the victim. Here's the problem: it's diverting the issue away from the REAL problem (nobody helped the victim) towards a completely bull$*** problem (instead of just watching the guy die, this man actually took a picture). And I think we have to stay on focus here. IF there was a problem with the bystanders' actions, then that problem is "not helping the dude". That's the ONLY problem. What people did WHILE not helping the dude is completely f***ing irrelevant. If this dude failed to act because there were other people there who he thought would act, then it's pretty misguided to direct anger towards this ONE GUY just because he happened to be the one complacent bystander who actually got pictures.

There's a difference from being too scared to move/paralyzsed and recording someone
#10 Posted by Slow_Show (2153 posts) -

Yeah, this is just the bystander effect, not some sign of oh-won't-someone-please-think-of-the-children! moral decay.

That said, the photographer deserves all the sh*t in the world for that "I was trying to warn the conductor with my flash" line.

#11 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -
[QUOTE="JigglyWiggly_"] There's a difference from being too scared to move/paralyzsed and recording someone

Wait, wait, wait. Youve just implied that bystander apathy was the reason for the photographer not helping, but that bystander apathy WASN'T the reason for the other bystanders to not help? Exactly what are you basing that on? For starters, does anyone here know how many people WERE down there when the guy got pushed onto the tracks? Can anyone here draw an accurate diagram approximating how many people were there and approximately where they were standing? If so, I'd like to see it because that would be VERY helpful in regards to placing blame. But hell...disregarding those details, how do you know that the other bystanders were just paralyzed with shock and fear, as opposed to just plain not giving a $*** (or more likely, giving a $*** while assuming that someone else would help the dude)? Do you actually have anything to substantiate that, or is that just plain nothing more than a mere guess?
#12 Posted by GhoX (5027 posts) -
A bystander is never obligated to help, as long as there isn't a duty of care (e.g. parent/child, or if the bystander was the cause of the danger). A duty-free bystander has every right to laugh and eat popcorn on the side of the road as groups of school children are mowed down by an out of control bus. It's not perfect, but it's the lesser evil. The alternative would be to impose such obligations upon common bystanders. That will simply intrude upon personal freedom way too much.
#13 Posted by rastotm (1370 posts) -

People would rather help themselves then help someone else since the dawn of time, even more so since the glorification of individualism.

#14 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4133 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Psychology has actually explained this long ago. The principle is that if there is a situation where someone is in need of help and other people around everybody thinks that someone else is going to help so nobody actually helps. Guy gets mugged in a large crowd, people do nothing. Guy gets mugged in a dark alley, the lone person present will probably help. The takeaway, if you're going to get mugged then do it when very few people are around.

Here's the thing, though. If that's really the reason why the photographer didn't help the victim, then that means that there were other people around. So...why are we singling out the photographer here? The question goes from "why didn't the photographer help the victim" to "why didn't ANYONE help the victim?" We're not bashing everyone who was there, we're just bashing one person who was there. The photographer, who took a picture instead of helping the victim. Here's the problem: it's diverting the issue away from the REAL problem (nobody helped the victim) towards a completely bull$*** problem (instead of just watching the guy die, this man actually took a picture). And I think we have to stay on focus here. IF there was a problem with the bystanders' actions, then that problem is "not helping the dude". That's the ONLY problem. What people did WHILE not helping the dude is completely f***ing irrelevant. If this dude failed to act because there were other people there who he thought would act, then it's pretty misguided to direct anger towards this ONE GUY just because he happened to be the one complacent bystander who actually got pictures.

You do not have sufficient standing to displace the effects of the man's actions that he alone chose. He does not get a pass because a possible photo of the best of humanity, that of someone selflessly saving that man, did not happen. Instead he photographed damnation. He is an adult. He took the chance. Now hes also being damned by many. Thats the gamble he took and the results he will take as well.
#15 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] You do not have sufficient standing to displace the effects of the man's actions that he alone chose. He does not get a pass because a possible photo of the best of humanity, that of someone selflessly saving that man, did not happen. Instead he photographed damnation. He is an adult. He took the chance. Now hes also being damned by many. Thats the gamble he took and the results he will take as well.

Which is bull$***. Taking the photo is NOT the problem. The problem (aside from the obvious problem of someone pushing the man down there in the first place, which is so obvious that it isn't worth discussing) is that no one helped this man. That WASN'T the action of this man alone, it's the action of every single person who was down there. Again, the issue isn't "why didn't this man help him", the issue is "why didn't ANYONE help him"? The photograph is completely irrelevant.
#16 Posted by comp_atkins (31476 posts) -
[QUOTE="theone86"]

Psychology has actually explained this long ago. The principle is that if there is a situation where someone is in need of help and other people around everybody thinks that someone else is going to help so nobody actually helps. Guy gets mugged in a large crowd, people do nothing. Guy gets mugged in a dark alley, the lone person present will probably help. The takeaway, if you're going to get mugged then do it when very few people are around.

MrGeezer
Here's the thing, though. If that's really the reason why the photographer didn't help the victim, then that means that there were other people around. So...why are we singling out the photographer here? The question goes from "why didn't the photographer help the victim" to "why didn't ANYONE help the victim?" We're not bashing everyone who was there, we're just bashing one person who was there. The photographer, who took a picture instead of helping the victim. Here's the problem: it's diverting the issue away from the REAL problem (nobody helped the victim) towards a completely bull$*** problem (instead of just watching the guy die, this man actually took a picture). And I think we have to stay on focus here. IF there was a problem with the bystanders' actions, then that problem is "not helping the dude". That's the ONLY problem. What people did WHILE not helping the dude is completely f***ing irrelevant. If this dude failed to act because there were other people there who he thought would act, then it's pretty misguided to direct anger towards this ONE GUY just because he happened to be the one complacent bystander who actually got pictures.

i had heard there was like 20s from when the guy was pushed to when he was struck by the train... that's a loong time for no one to help
#17 Posted by themajormayor (25853 posts) -
Doesn't the subway in NYC has an area under the platform where you can be safe from the train?
#18 Posted by comp_atkins (31476 posts) -
Doesn't the subway in NYC has an area under the platform where you can be safe from the train?themajormayor
that's where the rats and hobos live
#19 Posted by Postal_Guy (2643 posts) -

it is disturbing yes, but on the other hand, if someones committing suicide im sure as heck not gonna help em

#20 Posted by KiIIyou (27146 posts) -

[QUOTE="themajormayor"]Doesn't the subway in NYC has an area under the platform where you can be safe from the train?comp_atkins
that's where the rats and hobos live

And hobo-rats.

#21 Posted by Fightingfan (38011 posts) -
Someone was looking for a payday.
#22 Posted by bnarmz (1425 posts) -
here's the interview of the guy that took the picture. -- http://todaynews.today.com/_news/2012/12/05/15696609-photographer-if-i-could-have-i-would-have-saved-man-on-subway-tracks?lite
#23 Posted by -Tish- (3621 posts) -
Pretty sure the guy who snapped the photo was already doing so since he was a photographer. Also, there wasn't nearly enough time to help the guy. Those things go fast as hell. And even if there was enough time for the photographer to help, the victim himself would've certainly had enough time to pull himself up to safety. He just couldn't do it in time.
#24 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

That said, the photographer deserves all the sh*t in the world for that "I was trying to warn the conductor with my flash" line.

Slow_Show

The conductor said he noticed the flashes and slowed down, so his idea worked.

The photographer was too far away from the victim. He didn't react instantly, of course. The criminal was also moving towards him so he got closer to the wall just in case. He snapped photos of the criminal too.

As for the victim, he was drunk.

If the platform doesn't have a lip to hide under and you can't cross the lines, the correct reaction is to run away from the train. There's a stair at the end of the platform. But nobody thinks to do that...

#25 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

I have to laugh at all these people in this thread as well as the other thread who thought the photographer was using a camera on a phone. Their use has become so pervasive that people have forgotten that real cameras exist. As seen in the unlinked URL featuring an inteview with the photographer, he used a real camera with flash. Now, he states he was taking pictures to fire the flash and had gotten pictures that he didn't expect to have anything in them (so to speak). He was 500-600 feet away from the victim. The pics were most likely taken with a telephoto or zoom lens that changes how close something looks to the photographer. There is no way the photographer could have reached him and pulled the victim out in 22 seconds, especially since the attacker ran towards the photographer.

Y'all want to blame one person for not acting, but he was, even if unsuccessful, but forgive the others that were on the platform who did not act and eventually did pull out their phones to take pics of a doc performing CPR on a dead man. Those are the people who should be castigated, not the cameraman. Y'all sicken me for jumping to conclusions without the facts, like most of y'all usually do and knowing or seeing only one side of a story.

#26 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -
If the platform doesn't have a lip to hide under and you can't cross the lines, the correct reaction is to run in the opposite direction of the train. Baranga
Wait...do you mean to run TOWARD the train? Because running in the same direction would be running away. Anyway, that just seems poorly designed. Shouldn't the stairs be on the other side? Because if you have to run away from the train in order to reach the stairs, that gives you more time than having to run toward the train.
#27 Posted by Baranga (14217 posts) -

[QUOTE="Baranga"]If the platform doesn't have a lip to hide under and you can't cross the lines, the correct reaction is to run in the opposite direction of the train. MrGeezer
Wait...do you mean to run TOWARD the train? Because running in the same direction would be running away. Anyway, that just seems poorly designed. Shouldn't the stairs be on the other side? Because if you have to run away from the train in order to reach the stairs, that gives you more time than having to run toward the train.

Yeah I got it wrong. I mean in the same direction. Blame my foreignness.

#28 Posted by KiIIyou (27146 posts) -

I have to laugh at all these people in this thread as well as the other thread who thought the photographer was using a camera on a phone. Their use has become so pervasive that people have forgotten that real cameras exist. As seen in the unlinked URL featuring an inteview with the photographer, he used a real camera with flash. Now, he states he was taking pictures to fire the flash and had gotten pictures that he didn't expect to have anything in them (so to speak). He was 500-600 feet away from the victim. The pics were most likely taken with a telephoto or zoom lens that changes how close something looks to the photographer. There is no way the photographer could have reached him and pulled the victim out in 22 seconds, especially since the attacker ran towards the photographer.

Y'all want to blame one person for not acting, but he was, even if unsuccessful, but forgive the others that were on the platform who did not act and eventually did pull out their phones to take pics of a doc performing CPR on a dead man. Those are the people who should be castigated, not the cameraman. Y'all sicken me for jumping to conclusions without the facts, like most of y'all usually do and knowing or seeing only one side of a story.

WhiteKnight77
They all hippos.
#29 Posted by bnarmz (1425 posts) -
[QUOTE="Baranga"]If the platform doesn't have a lip to hide under and you can't cross the lines, the correct reaction is to run in the opposite direction of the train. MrGeezer
Wait...do you mean to run TOWARD the train? Because running in the same direction would be running away. Anyway, that just seems poorly designed. Shouldn't the stairs be on the other side? Because if you have to run away from the train in order to reach the stairs, that gives you more time than having to run toward the train.

He could have went under the lip or off to the otherside, there were other incedents where the person would just lie down flat in between the tracks and let the train ride over them. cleanly. In this case the victem looked like he wasn't really thinking, probably due to shock or drinking.
#30 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -

I have to laugh at all these people in this thread as well as the other thread who thought the photographer was using a camera on a phone. Their use has become so pervasive that people have forgotten that real cameras exist. As seen in the unlinked URL featuring an inteview with the photographer, he used a real camera with flash. Now, he states he was taking pictures to fire the flash and had gotten pictures that he didn't expect to have anything in them (so to speak). He was 500-600 feet away from the victim. The pics were most likely taken with a telephoto or zoom lens that changes how close something looks to the photographer. There is no way the photographer could have reached him and pulled the victim out in 22 seconds, especially since the attacker ran towards the photographer.

Y'all want to blame one person for not acting, but he was, even if unsuccessful, but forgive the others that were on the platform who did not act and eventually did pull out their phones to take pics of a doc performing CPR on a dead man. Those are the people who should be castigated, not the cameraman. Y'all sicken me for jumping to conclusions without the facts, like most of y'all usually do and knowing or seeing only one side of a story.

WhiteKnight77
The difference is, this guy got a photo. A photo which was published and with his name attached to it, which makes him a convenient scapegoat. That's really all it is, looking for someone to blame. And the guy who got the pictures published is a much more clear and identifiable target than the other people (who basically remained anonymous). The people singling the photographer out and criticizing him for not helping really aren't even criticizing him for not helping. They think they are, but they aren't. What they're really doing is criticizing him for getting the pictures, which is a load of bull$***.
#31 Posted by Diablo-B (4049 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="themajormayor"]Doesn't the subway in NYC has an area under the platform where you can be safe from the train?KiIIyou

that's where the rats and hobos live

And hobo-rats.

Actually people have served by laying down on the middle of the tracks where there is supposed to be a safe gap. But honestly I would be scared as f*** to acting on that knowledge if placed in that scenario.
#32 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4133 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] You do not have sufficient standing to displace the effects of the man's actions that he alone chose. He does not get a pass because a possible photo of the best of humanity, that of someone selflessly saving that man, did not happen. Instead he photographed damnation. He is an adult. He took the chance. Now hes also being damned by many. Thats the gamble he took and the results he will take as well.MrGeezer
Which is bull$***. Taking the photo is NOT the problem. The problem (aside from the obvious problem of someone pushing the man down there in the first place, which is so obvious that it isn't worth discussing) is that no one helped this man. That WASN'T the action of this man alone, it's the action of every single person who was down there. Again, the issue isn't "why didn't this man help him", the issue is "why didn't ANYONE help him"? The photograph is completely irrelevant.

The photograph is relevant. In college we saw a photo of a man taking pictures of a women drinking a beer off a pier. But she fell off. The last one he got of her was her reaching out to some men rushing to try and save her as a big wave was about to crash down on her. They had to retreat and she died. This photo was the opposite. One was showing one side of humanity and the other, the opposite. The person taking the photograph has to make that call on what to do with that picture. Professional photography involves capturing emotion and elements in a still.

Now I know the angle by which you say it is bs to absolutely hate the guy. But he made the choice to sell the photo. It is also true that people are paid to go to warzones and photograph people running for their lives as they are killed. Not specifically but thats the essence of it. To capure the damnation. But people think the situation is so damned that they do not associate blame. But the subway is a different atmosphere.

But then again maybe what you are saying not to blame him for, and what I think is fine to blame him for, is different.
#33 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]

I have to laugh at all these people in this thread as well as the other thread who thought the photographer was using a camera on a phone. Their use has become so pervasive that people have forgotten that real cameras exist. As seen in the unlinked URL featuring an inteview with the photographer, he used a real camera with flash. Now, he states he was taking pictures to fire the flash and had gotten pictures that he didn't expect to have anything in them (so to speak). He was 500-600 feet away from the victim. The pics were most likely taken with a telephoto or zoom lens that changes how close something looks to the photographer. There is no way the photographer could have reached him and pulled the victim out in 22 seconds, especially since the attacker ran towards the photographer.

Y'all want to blame one person for not acting, but he was, even if unsuccessful, but forgive the others that were on the platform who did not act and eventually did pull out their phones to take pics of a doc performing CPR on a dead man. Those are the people who should be castigated, not the cameraman. Y'all sicken me for jumping to conclusions without the facts, like most of y'all usually do and knowing or seeing only one side of a story.

MrGeezer

The difference is, this guy got a photo. A photo which was published and with his name attached to it, which makes him a convenient scapegoat. That's really all it is, looking for someone to blame. And the guy who got the pictures published is a much more clear and identifiable target than the other people (who basically remained anonymous). The people singling the photographer out and criticizing him for not helping really aren't even criticizing him for not helping. They think they are, but they aren't. What they're really doing is criticizing him for getting the pictures, which is a load of bull$***.

The thing is, everyone is castigating him without the full story, which OT is fond of doing time and again. Unless they were there, they do not know what happened or any of the other circumstances behind what transpired, yet they feel qualified to comment or criticize someone based upon one small fraction of a second, the time that the photo was taken. It's shameful.

#34 Posted by ultimate-k (2348 posts) -

This makes me sick, and this is just what swrong with society. Yep I could easy safe this mans life, but lets take advandage of the situation instead by taking apicture and make some money, that wont get me anywhere. I dont know if there was any one else around, but the photographer seems to be a complete douchbag.

#35 Posted by chilly-chill (8902 posts) -
What a snake
#36 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] The photograph is relevant. In college we saw a photo of a man taking pictures of a women drinking a beer off a pier. But she fell off. The last one he got of her was her reaching out to some men rushing to try and save her as a big wave was about to crash down on her. They had to retreat and she died. This photo was the opposite. One was showing one side of humanity and the other, the opposite. The person taking the photograph has to make that call on what to do with that picture. Professional photography involves capturing emotion and elements in a still.

Now I know the angle by which you say it is bs to absolutely hate the guy. But he made the choice to sell the photo. It is also true that people are paid to go to warzones and photograph people running for their lives as they are killed. Not specifically but thats the essence of it. To capure the damnation. But people think the situation is so damned that they do not associate blame. But the subway is a different atmosphere.

But then again maybe what you are saying not to blame him for, and what I think is fine to blame him for, is different.

See, what you're doing here is ass-backwards. You are saying that it's the responsibility of the photographer to make viewers comfortable and happy, and to only show people the pretty side of humanity. You're not even criticizing the guy for taking the pictures, you're criticizing the guy because the pictures are uncomfortable to look at. Essentially, you're blaming the messenger for bringing you bad news. http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ Do yourself a favor. Go to this website, look at some of the pictures, and pay particular attention to the quote on the home page. Granted, this NY Post photographer isn't in the same league as James Nachtwey and if he was telling the truth, getting the pictures wasn't even on his mind. But the exact same principle applies. If your reason for criticizing this photographer is because his pictures are ugly and show a darker side of humanity, then you're looking at things dead wrong.
#37 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -
The thing is, everyone is castigating him without the full story, which OT is fond of doing time and again. Unless they were there, they do not know what happened or any of the other circumstances behind what transpired, yet they feel qualified to comment or criticize someone based upon one small fraction of a second, the time that the photo was taken. It's shameful.WhiteKnight77
That's often how scapegoating works. It's gonna be done without getting the full story, because if we waited for the full story then there might not be anyone to blame.
#38 Posted by WhiteKnight77 (12018 posts) -

[QUOTE="WhiteKnight77"]The thing is, everyone is castigating him without the full story, which OT is fond of doing time and again. Unless they were there, they do not know what happened or any of the other circumstances behind what transpired, yet they feel qualified to comment or criticize someone based upon one small fraction of a second, the time that the photo was taken. It's shameful.MrGeezer
That's often how scapegoating works. It's gonna be done without getting the full story, because if we waited for the full story then there might not be anyone to blame.

And that is wrong and you know it as well as I do. Everyone wants to assign blame when it often is not warranted. If anyone is to blame, it is the person who actually pushed the victim, yet I do not recall anyone assigning blame to him for the true tragedy of this whole situation.

#39 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -

And that is wrong and you know it as well as I do. Everyone wants to assign blame when it often is not warranted. If anyone is to blame, it is the person who actually pushed the victim, yet I do not recall anyone assigning blame to him for the true tragedy of this whole situation.

WhiteKnight77
It sort of goes without saying that he's the one to blame, but that doesn't necessarily mean that he's the ONLY one to blame.
#40 Posted by CreasianDevaili (4133 posts) -
See, what you're doing here is ass-backwards. You are saying that it's the responsibility of the photographer to make viewers comfortable and happy, and to only show people the pretty side of humanity. You're not even criticizing the guy for taking the pictures, you're criticizing the guy because the pictures are uncomfortable to look at. Essentially, you're blaming the messenger for bringing you bad news. http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/ Do yourself a favor. Go to this website, look at some of the pictures, and pay particular attention to the quote on the home page. Granted, this NY Post photographer isn't in the same league as James Nachtwey and if he was telling the truth, getting the pictures wasn't even on his mind. But the exact same principle applies. If your reason for criticizing this photographer is because his pictures are ugly and show a darker side of humanity, then you're looking at things dead wrong. MrGeezer
Actually no. You're starting to do what you're saying everyone else is. I actually have no issues with the photograph. I think it was rather profound with how he captured the guy on the tracks looking at the oncoming subway train and the conductor as well. I am really starting to think this is something personal for you, even if not for this particular event.

What I am saying is that he captured great emotion and the still speaks many things. However one of those is some possible negatives of our society. This will make some people angry at the inability to erase it. Not a warzone, not a battleground, but a populated subway in New York. If you are up to snuff then you know part of being a good photographer is knowing how to capture aspects of life and/or death. I am sure he had photos before and after the one that got published on the front page of the NY Post. That one was chosen for good reason. He also should of known why it would be chosen.

He is getting blame because he brought something forth that was true but cannot be erased. It was not a mistake to bring it forth. He is not a bad human being for taking it. But he is going to have to deal with the social reactions that he knew it would bring about. He needs to stop trying to defend himself and realize that it robs the dignity of it. He took a great photograph.

The reactions towards him show that the photograph has a real message and actual substance. Thats a good thing you raging man.
#41 Posted by Stevo_the_gamer (42980 posts) -
Wow, that is unsettling.
#42 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="theone86"]

Psychology has actually explained this long ago. The principle is that if there is a situation where someone is in need of help and other people around everybody thinks that someone else is going to help so nobody actually helps. Guy gets mugged in a large crowd, people do nothing. Guy gets mugged in a dark alley, the lone person present will probably help. The takeaway, if you're going to get mugged then do it when very few people are around.

comp_atkins
Here's the thing, though. If that's really the reason why the photographer didn't help the victim, then that means that there were other people around. So...why are we singling out the photographer here? The question goes from "why didn't the photographer help the victim" to "why didn't ANYONE help the victim?" We're not bashing everyone who was there, we're just bashing one person who was there. The photographer, who took a picture instead of helping the victim. Here's the problem: it's diverting the issue away from the REAL problem (nobody helped the victim) towards a completely bull$*** problem (instead of just watching the guy die, this man actually took a picture). And I think we have to stay on focus here. IF there was a problem with the bystanders' actions, then that problem is "not helping the dude". That's the ONLY problem. What people did WHILE not helping the dude is completely f***ing irrelevant. If this dude failed to act because there were other people there who he thought would act, then it's pretty misguided to direct anger towards this ONE GUY just because he happened to be the one complacent bystander who actually got pictures.

i had heard there was like 20s from when the guy was pushed to when he was struck by the train... that's a loong time for no one to help

20 seconds, and the man couldn't climb onto a 3 foot platform if his life depended on it. [spoiler] oh wait, it did. [/spoiler] Just more evidence Americans need to get outside more, they cannot even lift themselves up.
#43 Posted by wis3boi (31472 posts) -

[QUOTE="comp_atkins"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"] Here's the thing, though. If that's really the reason why the photographer didn't help the victim, then that means that there were other people around. So...why are we singling out the photographer here? The question goes from "why didn't the photographer help the victim" to "why didn't ANYONE help the victim?" We're not bashing everyone who was there, we're just bashing one person who was there. The photographer, who took a picture instead of helping the victim. Here's the problem: it's diverting the issue away from the REAL problem (nobody helped the victim) towards a completely bull$*** problem (instead of just watching the guy die, this man actually took a picture). And I think we have to stay on focus here. IF there was a problem with the bystanders' actions, then that problem is "not helping the dude". That's the ONLY problem. What people did WHILE not helping the dude is completely f***ing irrelevant. If this dude failed to act because there were other people there who he thought would act, then it's pretty misguided to direct anger towards this ONE GUY just because he happened to be the one complacent bystander who actually got pictures.Nibroc420
i had heard there was like 20s from when the guy was pushed to when he was struck by the train... that's a loong time for no one to help

20 seconds, and the man couldn't climb onto a 3 foot platform if his life depended on it. [spoiler] oh wait, it did. [/spoiler] Just more evidence Americans need to get outside more, they cannot even lift themselves up.

except he was drunk off his ass

#44 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="comp_atkins"] i had heard there was like 20s from when the guy was pushed to when he was struck by the train... that's a loong time for no one to helpwis3boi

20 seconds, and the man couldn't climb onto a 3 foot platform if his life depended on it. [spoiler] oh wait, it did. [/spoiler] Just more evidence Americans need to get outside more, they cannot even lift themselves up.

except he was drunk off his ass

Don't get drunk and play chicken with trains? Ah well, survival of the fittest.
#45 Posted by wis3boi (31472 posts) -

[QUOTE="wis3boi"]

[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] 20 seconds, and the man couldn't climb onto a 3 foot platform if his life depended on it. [spoiler] oh wait, it did. [/spoiler] Just more evidence Americans need to get outside more, they cannot even lift themselves up.Nibroc420

except he was drunk off his ass

Don't get drunk and play chicken with trains? Ah well, survival of the fittest.

l

o

l

keep trollin

#46 Posted by TrainerCeleste (1774 posts) -
Seeing it again the man in the train looks like a demon with those eyes XD
#47 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -
[QUOTE="CreasianDevaili"] Actually no. You're starting to do what you're saying everyone else is. I actually have no issues with the photograph. I think it was rather profound with how he captured the guy on the tracks looking at the oncoming subway train and the conductor as well. I am really starting to think this is something personal for you, even if not for this particular event.

What I am saying is that he captured great emotion and the still speaks many things. However one of those is some possible negatives of our society. This will make some people angry at the inability to erase it. Not a warzone, not a battleground, but a populated subway in New York. If you are up to snuff then you know part of being a good photographer is knowing how to capture aspects of life and/or death. I am sure he had photos before and after the one that got published on the front page of the NY Post. That one was chosen for good reason. He also should of known why it would be chosen.

He is getting blame because he brought something forth that was true but cannot be erased. It was not a mistake to bring it forth. He is not a bad human being for taking it. But he is going to have to deal with the social reactions that he knew it would bring about. He needs to stop trying to defend himself and realize that it robs the dignity of it. He took a great photograph.

The reactions towards him show that the photograph has a real message and actual substance. Thats a good thing you raging man.

Actually, no one's criticizing the man for that reason. I thought you were, but if I was mistaken on that point then apparently no one is (I thought it particularly strange that you'd be criticizing the guy based on the photo's journalistic merits). Everyone else seems to be criticizing the guy for the mere fact that he took a photo at all. Every other witness was anonymous, this guy has been publicly identified. So this guy gets publicly reamed. It doesn't really matter whether the photo shows anyone helping are not, people are pointing the finger at the photographer and saying "why didn't YOU help, you jerk?"
#48 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Don't get drunk and play chicken with trains? Ah well, survival of the fittest.

Did you completely miss the part about how a deranged man freaking pushed him onto the tracks, or are you intentionally trying to look stupid?
#49 Posted by Nibroc420 (13567 posts) -
[QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Don't get drunk and play chicken with trains? Ah well, survival of the fittest.

Did you completely miss the part about a deranged man freaking pushed him onto the tracks, or are you intentionally trying to look stupid?

I saw no video. From what I've read though, no-one was there to help him up. If no-one was there, how do you know if someone pushed him? Was it you?
#50 Posted by MrGeezer (56562 posts) -
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="MrGeezer"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] Don't get drunk and play chicken with trains? Ah well, survival of the fittest.

Did you completely miss the part about a deranged man freaking pushed him onto the tracks, or are you intentionally trying to look stupid?

I saw no video. From what I've read though, no-one was there to help him up. If no-one was there, how do you know if someone pushed him? Was it you?

I guess that answers my question. Apparently you ARE intentionally trying to look stupid.