Banned from r/Leica for a Photo of John Abernathy being Arrested/Assaulted and tossing his M10 to a Fellow Photographer

Status
Not open for further replies.
Ko.Fe. said:
This bugs me for sure. I mean, I can't find bystander story how it is all evolved.
Even in Russia folks with cameras are not grabbed during public gatherings while getting shutdown with force.
Click to expand...
My read is he was in a "Press Scrum" and no one was expecting the "Press" to have anything done to them. There are so many observers out there (e.g., the lady in Pink) and they are focused on "regular people" who are targets, not the press.

The last two pictures (only two) that I saw from his Leica didn't make me think he was where he might get mistake for an active protester (either for or against). Again, we have not audio or video of what happened before. ICE appears to treat everyone on the streets with the same level of aggressive and demanding control and perhaps the ICE agents just found out that their signing bonus is only payable after five years of service (a unconfirmed rumor from my oldest in DC).

I to wish there was more information.

B2 (;->
 
The one thing that is uncontrovertible is that regardless of what Abernathy did or didn't do, ICE not only threw him down, piled on top of him, and made sure he was fully under control... they then sprayed pepper spray straight into his face.

While they were on top of him and he couldn't move.

There's photos of this happening. Photos that clearly show the sequence of events. They're here: Photographer Tosses His Leica Away From ICE as He's Tackled to the Ground

You can see him go down, be held down with a clean face, then what is presumably a tear gas cloud goes up, and by the time the photographer gets a clear view of Abernathy again, the side of his face is covered in orange pepper spray remnants.

Of course, with recent events, it seems that he was lucky. But that's not just "heavy-handed". It's cruel. And unnecessary. And unjustifiable.
 
You can only be neutral and "dispassionate" until the first blow is struck against you personally. As the old saying goes, "A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged." Your attitude changes forever when you directly witness or become the victim. Lotsa victims out there. Lotsa witnesses too. I predict a lot of witnesses are no longer neutral or "dispassionate" about this whole sorry mess.




....................................................................................................
 
BillBingham2 said:
With the perforation of folks who may want to appear neutral initially but may act otherwise as time goes on. Seeing them from the “beginning” or when they come into the area may provide additional information that could allow one to make a more informed conclusion.
Click to expand...

There may never be a more informed conclusion. I have empathy for his experience of fear and distress. Skepticism doesn’t mean dismissing anyone’s experience—it's just wanting context and clarity. It’s also worth remembering those whose pain (or worse) never entered the public sphere, without an audience, ignored by the media.

Although this topic has skirted the edges of forum policy, thanks to all for keeping things civil.
 
chuckroast said:
We do know what happened. But we don't know what precipitated it.

It's ludicrous to say that any harm that a journalist who chooses to enter a war zone was inflicted intentionally as a matter of targeting them to silence them.

This entire thing just drips with bias and and agenda by people also think that the police should not be able to do their jobs at all.
Click to expand...
Are you implying that no journalist or photojournalist has never been targeted by law officials?
 
"It's ludicrous to say that any harm that a journalist who chooses to enter a war zone was inflicted intentionally as a matter of targeting them to silence them."

Only one person in this thread seems to believe that's what's being said. Only one person has twisted the situation into exactly what they want to complain about. Find a single post in this entire thread where somebody other than "chuckroast" mentions a war zone, or even a single post about Abernathy being targeted to silence him. Somebody has built themselves a nice little strawman to pick apart.
 
Archiver said:
Everyone is going to express a political bias or leaning in one way or another, simply by virtue of what they post. Some will look at the Abernathy incident and see it as an example of federal heavyhandedness, others will see it as someone getting what they signed up for. What's interesting is when someone can see both sides and more. Feds have been heavyhanded, and people have been putting themselves in positions to be involved. We truly can have it both ways.

As for media bias: political commentary masquerading as news reportage has been the mainstay of the media for quite some time, and it happens all along the political spread. As photographers and documentarians, we ought to be aware of what we are putting out there. Most of us are more sophisticated than cat and flower photos. Oh, wait.

M9 - Tulip Festival by Archiver, on Flickr

M9 - Bathing in the Sun by Archiver, on Flickr
Click to expand...

Bias exists. It is part of the human condition. Not all bias is equal. Not all reporting is as accurate. And not all differences are minimal or dismissible. The thrown camera incident focuses us on a minor event. Look at the overall situation.

I took a Masters at McGill in US History, recent US. I was reading two to three books a day in addition to course work so I think I have some small grasp of this. These current times and events are unique. That said, this remains a camera forum not a political podium. Please honor others than yourselves.
 
chuckroast said:
We do know what happened. But we don't know what precipitated it.

It's ludicrous to say that any harm that a journalist who chooses to enter a war zone was inflicted intentionally as a matter of targeting them to silence them.

This entire thing just drips with bias and and agenda by people also think that the police should not be able to do their jobs at all.
Click to expand...
It seems to me that you are the only one here imparting bias and agenda.
You're making generalised accusations about 'people'. 🤷‍♂️
 
coogee said:
It seems to me that you are the only one here imparting bias and agenda.
You're making generalised accusations about 'people'. 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...

Ok that made me chuckle.

I have "imparted" two things; Wait until we have the whole story and quote what the man said in his own words.

But since that doesn't fit the social media, villagers with pitchforks, I'm-so-smart agenda popular amongst the unwashed masses, reason and analysis are now discarded as "bias". Have fun with that.
 
Last edited:
True or false, right or wrong, yes or no, us or them, whatever the F….all depends on which side you are on. If it jives with your ism then it’s the truth else fake news. Please take this BS elsewhere.
 
chuckroast said:
We do know what happened. But we don't know what precipitated it.

It's ludicrous to say that any harm that a journalist who chooses to enter a war zone was inflicted intentionally as a matter of targeting them to silence them.

This entire thing just drips with bias and and agenda by people also think that the police should not be able to do their jobs at all.
Click to expand...

I've been purposely avoiding this thread for the last several days, as I have strong opinions about what's going on and don't want to make any statements that are going to get me in trouble here. So I'm going to ask a few questions instead:

  • What "war zone" did Abernathy enter?
  • Was there some congressional declaration of war that I missed?
  • Is it the federal government that is at war?
  • Who is the federal government at war with in an American city?
  • What is the legal basis of this "war"?
  • From his website, it appears John Abernathy is based in Minneapolis. So in what way did he "choose to enter a war zone"? Walking down the streets of an American city is not (or should not be) "choosing to enter a war zone."
  • What "police" are you referring to? What jobs were they trying to do? (Hint: it is not the job of police to fight wars.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom