"Ghouls Took Photos Of Dying Suicide Girl"

[J J Kapsberger]

That's the headline for this article.

Most of the story concerns the unfortunate girl's troubles that led her to commit suicide. The lurid headline derives from this part of the article (which I quote):


'"[The coroner] praised the actions of passers-by who tried to help Robyn, but he said some had acted "in a shabby way" by taking photographs as she lay dying.

"You can only presume something like this has never happened to them, but it does make you worried about humanity," he said.

He added: "This was a child's life and you were taking photos on your mobile phones.

"I'm sorry, but I think that is horrid and the people who did that ought to be ashamed of themselves."

The coroner said no one could know what was going through Robyn's mind in the moments before she jumped, but concluded she took her own life.'


I don't know whether the photographers were simply offending the coroner's morals or whether they indeed neglected helping the girl in any way they could (assuming she wasn't beyond all help).

If you happened upon such a scene and had your camera with you, would you take a photo?

 

[photogdave]

If you happened upon such a scene and had your camera with you, would you take a photo?

Not in a million years. When I was a press photographer I had to photograph the body of a girl who was molested and murdered, as they brought her out of the crime scene. Most horrible experience of my life.

 

[coelacanth]

If you happened upon such a scene and had your camera with you, would you take a photo?

No. There are professionals who do that as their job. I'm not one of them. There are bystanders do that just because they can. I'm not one of them.

 

[dogberryjr]

"If you happened upon such a scene and had your camera with you, would you take a photo?"

Nope.

 

[Ken Smith]

I don't know whether the photographers were simply offending the coroner's morals or whether they indeed neglected helping the girl in any way they could (assuming she wasn't beyond all help).

They weren't offending the coroner's morals - they were offending humanity's morals. That's assuming enough people have any morals left to actually constitute humanity as a whole still having morals.

 

[John Lawrence]

"If you happened upon such a scene and had your camera with you, would you take a photo?"

Nope.

Neither would I.

John

 

[dcsang]

If you happened upon such a scene and had your camera with you, would you take a photo?

Not a chance.

I don't even raise my camera towards the homeless nowadays - people need help more than I need another photo...

Dave

 

[Papa Smurf]

Not in that way, they camera does not lie.

Not in that way, they camera does not lie.

A long time ago, my brother-in-law and his family were in an automobile wreck on Christmas eve. Their infant girl died in her mother's arms. At the time of the funeral, both sets of Grandparents asked me to photograph the Funeral Parlor, including the casket and the body, just before the funeral. Their logic was that the mother was still in a coma, the father was still in intensive care and no one could say if either would make it. So, I did, when the photos came back I looked at one and only one. In the Funeral Parlor, the body was so pristine that she looked like a china doll. The photos showed something else entirely. The camera does not lie. I took the photos as an act of respect to the Grandparents that knew that they had lost a grandchild and thought that they might still lose a son and a daughter. I believe that the passers-by that took cell phone images will soon regret their actions. The camera does not lie.🙁

 

[hipsterdufus]

people need help more than I need another photo...

Couldn't have said it better myself. And, while I may have thought of taking a picture, my good sense and common decency would have overruled that fleeting thought very quickly.

 

[oftheherd]

If I were absolutely certain there was nothing I could do for the person dying, I might or might not. But aid for the physical or spiritual well being would have to come first. If that weren't a concern, then if I thought it might aid the police/authorities, I might well do so. Just to do it to have the photo would not be of any interest.

I have seen many people dead, in all states from the scene of gruesome deaths to autopsy, and photographed them as part of my job. It didn't bother me to do so. But I didn't take any perverse pleasure from seeing it or doing it either. It was my job and my commitment to helping catch and convict bad guys.

I wonder how many who photographed the dying girl have since removed the photos from their phones? And if they haven't, what is their motive for keeping them?

 

[oftheherd]

A long time ago, my brother-in-law and his family were in an automobile wreck on Christmas eve. Their infant girl died in her mother's arms. At the time of the funeral, both sets of Grandparents asked me to photograph the Funeral Parlor, including the casket and the body, just before the funeral. Their logic was that the mother was still in a coma, the father was still in intensive care and no one could say if either would make it. So, I did, when the photos came back I looked at one and only one. In the Funeral Parlor, the body was so pristine that she looked like a china doll. The photos showed something else entirely. The camera does not lie. I took the photos as an act of respect to the Grandparents that knew that they had lost a grandchild and thought that they might still lose a son and a daughter. I believe that the passers-by that took cell phone images will soon regret their actions. The camera does not lie.🙁

That must have been a horrible experience for all involved, especially you. I'm glad your were able to share it with us. I am sorry for all. I hope the parents survived and were able to have other children. That wouldn't completely fill the void, but it would help.

 

[swoop]

I've probably seen about a dozen actually bodies in my time as a photojournalist. Would I have photographed that girl? Yeah, I probably would have. It's my job. And it's depressing. The worst thing I've ever done was photographing a mother grieving after losing two of her children in a fire. And I'm sure someday I'll do worse. The editors praise you, but you feel like crap afterward. Over and over I show up at these scenes and I know that the only thing I can do is take pictures. I'm not qualified to help these people. I wouldn't even know how. Nothing I do helps anyone. Kevin Carter is the perfect example of the way your sense of morality can tear you apart in this line of work. Where all you can do is stand by and watch as misery affects everyone around you.

 

[Steve_F]

Even if I wasn't bound by a 'duty of care' my own morals would ensure that you help others first.

Steve.

 

[bob338]

There is a horrible, sensationalist movie called 'The Bridge' about people who jumped off the Golden Gate Bridge. The person who made it conned the Bridge Authority to get his permits and even interviewed the families of the victims BEFORE telling them he had footage of their relative jumping.

In one scene a guy spots a woman about to jump and starts snapping away, they show his pictures in the movie and interview him. Eventually he decides to help her and grabs her off of the railing, which was the right thing to do, but I can't help but wonder why it took so long for the instinct to kick in?

I can't imagine wanting to see a picture of someone moments before suicide, much less being the person taking it.

bob

 

[crawdiddy]

What's so special about photography? A writer describes a girl's suicide and publishes the story in a paper, and that's fine. But a photograph of the subject would be disrespectful?

I don't follow this logic.

 

[Ducky]

I would not even consider it. Shameful.

 

[bob338]

What's so special about photography? A writer describes a girl's suicide and publishes the story in a paper, and that's fine. But a photograph of the subject would be disrespectful?

I don't follow this logic.

the writer is reporting something that has already happened, he cannot do anything about it. the photographer is witness to the scene and probably able to intervene.

bob

 

[crawdiddy]

the writer is reporting something that has already happened, he cannot do anything about it. the photographer is witness to the scene and probably able to intervene.

bob

So, you agree that if the girl is already pronounced dead, then there's no problem with photographing her?

 

[J J Kapsberger]

They weren't offending the coroner's morals - they were offending humanity's morals. That's assuming enough people have any morals left to actually constitute humanity as a whole still having morals.

You're assuming that your moral position holds for all of "humanity" and that the people taking the pictures acted in a manner that one should call immoral. You've touched on what is for me the most important philosophical question: was it really immoral—'ghoulish'—of them to take photos?

I tend to agree with oftheherd's position (see his post above): if, and only if, I knew that I couldn't offer any help, I wouldn't rule out taking a picture.

I certainly wouldn't take the picture for fun or entertainment.

However, I might consider it such an extraordinary and moving scene that I should capture it and contemplate it later on. The simple act of shooting a scene wouldn't inherently cause (further) harm to the girl.

One other consideration I'd have: I'd not wish to invoke the wrath of people gathered at the scene who would be offended by my taking a picture of her for whatever reason I choose, whether 'ghoulish' or not.

 

[dcsang]

What's so special about photography? A writer describes a girl's suicide and publishes the story in a paper, and that's fine. But a photograph of the subject would be disrespectful?

I don't follow this logic.

The writer is writing the story after the fact.
The people on the scene could have chosen to help (or at least respect the body even if the girl didn't respect it herself - i.e. suicide)

There's a clear difference between the two imho.

Dave