"Ghouls Took Photos Of Dying Suicide Girl"

I agree.

I agree.

weetsie said:
i think its far more important what you do with the photo than if you take it or not.
Click to expand...

The issue, to me is one of respect for each person's right to privacy. There are those that believe that if it occurs in public view, it is news and therefore the individuals involved have forfeited their right to privacy. As a professional, a photographer might be able to control its usage; however. amateurs, as a rule, might not be able to do the same. The social sites and blogs on the internet are full of such examples. How do the teenage girls that were "just goofing around" with a friend feel when they learn that they, in all of their glory and most intimate moment, are displayed on the Internet? How does the parents of this girl feel about pictures of her in her last moments of life are being forwarded around the World? :confused:
 
sonofdanang said:
There is nothing more natural than death. The depiction of it in, among other forms, dance, literature, painting, sculpture, and yes, photography, is as natural as the curiosity that accompanies one of the two most significant moments of the mortal coil.
The choice as to one's actions surrounding the death of a being is each individual's. Also natural.
History may judge them and perspective may judge them. And we may think that we may or may not do what we purport. We who judge in absentia with assumptions as to the behavior of those involved should be wise with the rocks in our hands. The walls may be rather more delicate than we think.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
In fact a lot of papers and news media do not even report suicide due to the tendency to copy cats......

On the original question, no I would most likely not use the photo op.
 
Weegee comes to mind. Nicholas Nixon as well, in a different context.

I'd not have any moral compunction to stop anyone from shooting, and would imagine one could make a powerful image of such a scene. Not knowing proper medical procedures "help" is certainly likely to do more harm than good as zumbido says, and my sister (an EMT, and my wife a nurse agree with). A crowd of people is also sure to not be of help- one or two perhaps, but six, eight? No.

As so often happens, what is OK for one is not OK for another, and the mob rule decides what is OK for all. I bet I'd shoot it.
 
zumbido said:
What is with this aggressive, nasty assumption that people would take a photo instead of help?...,and the coroner's statement is particularly silly. He said that "some" people helped but others just stood around? How many is some? If two people were helping, three at most, anyone else would have hindered not helped. And unless they were properly trained, the ones helping nearly always do more harm than good (my paramedic friends do not have a whole lot nice to say about "good samaritans" who do anything more than obvious things like getting the person out of the way of further harm, putting pressure on lacerations, or icing severed parts).

You're using a false dilemma as an excuse to nastily attack people who may be disagreeing with you about an entirely different question.
Click to expand...

Correct. Several posts in this thread are based on the assumption that the photo takers could've helped but chose instead to take pictures. Nothing in the article says that was the case.

And we don't know whether the coroner was stating a fact—that people neglected their duty to help when in fact they could have—or merely expressing disgust at behaviour that offends is personal morals.
 
Maybe some other questions would be:

- Were the photographers showing empathy?

- Should people, in general, be empathetic?
 
What if the situation was that there were numerous other people helping the girl already, then as a photographer would you take a picture?

I think if it was myself alone, I would be helping her not taking pictures.

The other situation though, hard to say.
 
I would try to help out, and even if I cannot, I would not take photos unless I had been on an assignment to take photos there professionally.
 
zumbido said:
Possibly interesting questions, but I think as stated they're impossibly broad... as a first step I'm wondering what would "showing empathy" look like in this situation.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on the motivation of the person taking the picture. Sometimes, someone will take a picture like that because they want to convey a message to the world (think Nick Ut).

However I have a feeling the cameraphone photographers were more interested in showing a kEwL photo to their friends, and didn't much care about changing the world.
 
It doesn't matter what people do if they don't break the law. In most countries we don't live under rule of morality, we live under rule of law. If there is no law that says "don't take pictures of dying suicide victims" all you can say is "I would" or "I wouldn't" for personal reasons that are objectively of little interest. The coroner's position is meant to be limited to establishing the identity of a dead person, their cause of death and whether an inquiry is required. In the UK coroners no longer have the power to recommend charges from an inquiry but the police or Crown Prosecution Service can take the coroner's findings and proceed with charges if they find the coroner's evidence sufficiently compelling. In using such emotive language, all this story makes me is worried about one of the West Dorset coroners, who seems to think he is an arbiter of morality rather than someone whose job is to investigate deaths and establish a cause, a very important and serious role. The editorial bores me to tears.

Marty
 
Papa Smurf said:
The camera does not lie.:(
Click to expand...

Eh?
Well maybe. I remember there was a talking camera at one point, back when every manufacturer was jamming as much gimmicky electronics as possible into every camera (1980s..) An SLR, maybe Minolta. . It would say "too close" or "use flash." Of course you could turn that feature off. But I don't remember if you could set it to tell lies.
 
The law is society's lowest form of morality as that is all that can morally forced upon people and way too often, not even then.

Yes, we all should aspire to its highest morality, but don't expect it, and be grateful for it when it is present.
 
If I felt like there was nothing I could do to help, then yes. I wouldn't sell the photo, but I would take it.
 
This was not a circumstance where someone died (for which I'm thankful) but one where someone was injured. I did take some photos.

This is what I said about the photos:

An accident on George Street, near Town Hall. An older lady had taken a bad fall. I came on the scene later, and quite deliberately didn't photograph the injured lady. It was nice to see, though, that any number of bystanders stopped to help. It was also handy that a number of medical types were walking through the city, handing out flyers for a fund-raising doctors' orchestra - they were on-hand to provide some expert assistance almost immediately.
Click to expand...
And one of the photos I took:


Does this make me a bad person?

...Mike
 
mfunnell said:
This was not a circumstance where someone died (for which I'm thankful) but one where someone was injured. I did take some photos.

This is what I said about the photos:

And one of the photos I took:


Does this make me a bad person?

...Mike
Click to expand...
This is a great example of what happens when an amateur (news) photographer shoots at the scene of an accident vs. a pro.
No offense Mike (I mean this sincerely) but this is not a good "hard news" photo. I can just see my old PJ professor or one of my old editors looking at his and saying "what am I supposed to be looking at? What is going on in this shot? Why should I be interested in this?" Etc. etc.
The photo doesn't help the situation. It's of no benefit to the injured parties and it's not a good enough shot to illustrate the importance of emergency service workers. There is also the strong possibility that an amateur shooter could be in the way in an emergency situation and do more harm than good. This is why only trained pros should be shooting in these situations.
No Mike, you're not a bad person! I'm not picking on you but just using this shot to illustrate my objections to non-professional photographers trying to make photos at emergency scenes.
 
I have photographed some scenes here kind of like this but the context is very different. People taking their own lives but in defiance of the g.o.v.e.r.n.m.e.n.t (the you know who love to pick this word out here) when they move in to take the houses in a neighborhood without fare pay. Many people here can never pay for a new house in their lifetimes so when they have their old houses taken some decide a grand public display is the best way to voice their lack of power against the man. I have also grabbed photos of the aftermath of retaliation of g.o.v who routinely run people over in the streets with unmarked cars who are the most troublesome organizers.

In these cases when you photograph the end of peoples existence....well its up to you, but I think as I am doing an ongoing project here about the transformation of this society I have to capture these details as well or else I risk becoming a propaganda pusher for "them".
 
photogdave said:
There is also the strong possibility that an amateur shooter could be in the way in an emergency situation and do more harm than good. This is why only trained pros should be shooting in these situations.
No Mike, you're not a bad person!
Click to expand...
Actually, I think you just said that I am.

...Mike
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom