LA woman stabbed, killed taking pictures of homeless

[Keith]

Can't see anything charming here, an unlucky person who for some reason we do not know has become an attraction point for a lady who will probably show her catch to her friends at tea time. Sorry, but a lot of the post I read seem to be written by people who had more contact with law books than with people in the street. Of course, a person killing another is acting against the law but if you ever had contact with people in the street you might know that there is a mix of reasons for them to be there, usually involving in different measure addiction, some mental problem, bad luck of some sort, some rejection of the society as it is or as they perceive it and that some of them for perfectly understandable reasons are simply mad at "the other part of society". Of course they are not "right" but it is highly advisable for anyone with a camera not only to use precautions but also to understand that whatever happened to them it was not "charming" and it should not be presented or perceived as such, even if the law perhaps grants the right to do this. I would suggest as a nice reading the book: "Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected" by Rory Miller, it is kind of self defense book but it really talk a lot about how different parts of society live according to different rules and how disregarding this reality in the name of some high morale and law might become a recipe for disaster when one get into contact with
certain people. If one goes out for a reportage on a Bikers Gang one cannot hope to invoke any type of law or rights, one gets into contact with them according to their rules and at one's own risk, if they kill that's against the law but one should not even consider in which ways the law is protecting the photographer at the moment of organizing the meeting.

GLF

My comment was based purely on the interaction going on in the photo between the two subjects. It's positive and has a warmth to it.

But go ahead ... dissect my words to suit your own needs! 🙂

 

[Dana B.]

Many on this board may not have a clue how vicious hustlers can be on Hollywood Boulevard. I live in Los Angeles, and have brushes with many of them, which can include the homeless. My heart goes out to this poor woman.

 

[Turtle]

On the subject of US prisons being one of the largest mental health service providers, they are also know to be one of the largest mental health problem creators.

On the subject of carrying a little penknife... in the time taken to remove it from its hidey hole and open it, you should have used that time to turn and run. Violence usually happens far too quickly for a decent reactive response, so its best to turn tail and leg it when the 'combat indicators' are present. There's no shame in running when it avoids ending up in the mortuary. In foreign countries, where I feel it appropriate, I carry a monopod hooked onto my belt. A much more effective tool than a measly pocket knife, because it allows stand off and keeps you out of range of other people's knives. Still, I will turn tail and run if such an opportunity exists.

 

[mugent]

I've stopped giving money to street people. I do give money to charities that aid the homeless. But I think giving money to them directly often feeds their addiction to drugs or alcohol.

Oh, and I don't photograph the homeless.

Fair enough, but when I've had a bad day (or just a normal day), I might have a beer or two when I get home. A typical homeless persons day is likely to have been much worse, so I figure they need a drink as much as I do.

I understand your point of view, but I don't see it as my place to say a person can't have drink or drugs, I don't know his/her circumstances.

 

[Sparrow]

Can't see anything charming here, an unlucky person who for some reason we do not know has become an attraction point for a lady who will probably show her catch to her friends at tea time. Sorry, but a lot of the post I read seem to be written by people who had more contact with law books than with people in the street. Of course, a person killing another is acting against the law but if you ever had contact with people in the street you might know that there is a mix of reasons for them to be there, usually involving in different measure addiction, some mental problem, bad luck of some sort, some rejection of the society as it is or as they perceive it and that some of them for perfectly understandable reasons are simply mad at "the other part of society". Of course they are not "right" but it is highly advisable for anyone with a camera not only to use precautions but also to understand that whatever happened to them it was not "charming" and it should not be presented or perceived as such, even if the law perhaps grants the right to do this. I would suggest as a nice reading the book: "Facing Violence: Preparing for the Unexpected" by Rory Miller, it is kind of self defense book but it really talk a lot about how different parts of society live according to different rules and how disregarding this reality in the name of some high morale and law might become a recipe for disaster when one get into contact with
certain people. If one goes out for a reportage on a Bikers Gang one cannot hope to invoke any type of law or rights, one gets into contact with them according to their rules and at one's own risk, if they kill that's against the law but one should not even consider in which ways the law is protecting the photographer at the moment of organizing the meeting.

GLF

Well, I was there and that's twaddle, it was nothing like that ... I'm sorry you have to live in such a divided society or that you feel so threatened by it that you think in this way

 

[pakeha]

This is spot-on. Walking among and interacting with inner-city homeless folks is much like swimming with sharks. Most of the time they'll just check you out for the sake of curiosity. Once in a while one will try to eat you.

This was a tragic incident.

I was a cop for 30 years and worked areas with large homeless populations for several years.

Those of us who are financially capable of owning and using cameras live in a much different world than those who are being photographed on the street. When you venture into that world, you abandon the relatively safe world you (we) live in, and enter into a very dark, violent, and different world where people are beaten or killed for blankets, half a bottle of booze, or a misplaced insult. It is an unseen war zone that is nestled, hidden and forgotten, inside every city in the US. In that world there are only predators and victims. They all try to get along the best they can, but they're merely existing. No one "lives" in that world in the traditional sense as we here contemplate "living."

People who live on the streets are unpredictable and do not share the societal norms that those of us who post here take for granted. When you take to the streets to photograph that world, you leave the relative safety of "our" world behind, and you enter "their" world. If you're going to be in that world, you need to be prepared to become a part of that world and all that entails. If you don't have the survival skills to successfully navigate "their" world, then you probably ought not be there.

ON EDIT: It's also important to remember that our jails and prisons are now the largest mental-health provider systems in the country, and that for many of the homeless, particularly those with severe mental health issues, our jails and prisons (as bad as they are) are a much better, safer (for them,) and preferable place to be than on the street.

What a great critically thought out post from someone who obviously should know what they are talking about.
Watching from the sidelines on this topic I cannot help but be reminded of Marilyn Manson's quote " I would not say anything, i would just shut the #$%@ up and listen"
It is telling that only two other people have commented on what was written by hepcat.

 

[Turtle]

The below is not applicable to what happend to the young woman concerned, but it relates to the inevitable tone of such discussions:

Photographing the homeless seems to be a hugely contentious issue with some people happy to use vociferous objection to display their 'moral spurs' (this is not prevalent in this discussion, but it usually is in such debates). I find this nauseating.

While I agree that there is a lot of fickle and patronising photography out there on this subject, I am going to put forward an idea - a notion - which I think resides in many of those who photograph this subject. I think it also explains why it is a subject of particular fascination amongst younger photographers:

Seeing people in predicaments we cannot intuitively relate to is unsettling. That in itself can be compelling and many are drawn to the macabre as a way of exploring fears and our sense of self. Most of the people photographing the homeless are not themselves homeless. Of course not; that’s the point: it is a state that the photographer is struggling to understand, not necessarily from the point of view of ‘how could this happen.. .what are the social factors behind it all’ , but at a much more primitive level: what would I do? How could I cope? What would it be like? Could things occur in my life that could result in me being in their position? The backdrop to this is that the photographer is invariably rather glad that they do enjoy better circumstances, naturally. The argument used by the critics is that this process is entirely selfish and one way. I'd like to think that for every person who takes an interest, even if largely about understanding oneself, that personal growth sets in and results in more members of society having more developed sensibilities. This is a genuinely positive thing. Even if someone looks back on those photos and thinks 'woah, what a twit I was', its all progress.

It is rather like the divide between sanity and insanity being blurred and a matter of ‘expert’ opinion. Many of us ponder what it is like to approach, straddle and cross that threshold. It’s scary and in thinking about these things, I am convinced the process is, in overall terms, positive. Of course the homeless are ‘objects of fascination’ to those who come from backgrounds that put such a state beyond the realm of ready imagination. Of course many struggle to fully humanise the homeless, because they cannot equate their sense of what it means to be human and alive with such a state. They have no experience that comes anywhere close. So there you have it: is this process of exploration and macabre wonder, not the beginning of a journey of understanding and empathy? I rather think it is. Of course it’s not something that happens quickly and it requires maturity, but we all know that, right? Some will find this maturity and empathy quickly, by nature or nurture. Other’s won’t, but any effort to bring these disparate worlds together is a good thing in my opinion. Having ‘cookie cutter’ emotional responses to situations because ‘they are right’ may have some value, but they are no substitute from making an attempt to understand. It is being out there, even if initially blissfully ignorant, that puts that people in the position whereby they can learn. its the interactions that bring real human depth to the reality, not superficial classroom rehearsed lines.

Mocking, taunting and dismissing the disadvantaged is a very, very different scenario to what I am suggesting above; however, lets not turn the issue into a polarised debate where you are either a photographic vampire or pure of heart. That’s complete BS and anyone with an ounce of maturity knows it. I'd also wager that some of the moral puritans have absolutely no real desire to understand at any level of depth, but toss accusations of predatory behaviour around from the comfort of their very comfortable homes. its kinda like being a morality armchair general. I see such people in Afghanistan all the time and they are without doubt the most frustrating people to be around, because they are convinced they have figured out things they have not. After all, they read it all in a book and, as often as not, they abandon their 'convictions' at the drop of a hat when things get uncomfortable. I see little real morality in these people. At the same time, I see ignorant, clumsy and sometimes arrogant youngsters with the willingness to find their own answers and, in time, they do.

I hope people continue to explore boundaries, even if clumsily, because this is the basis of original thinking. The alternative, which is already frighteningly prevalent, is terrifying: we will be told what we need to know and think.

 

[jsrockit]

Cute snark. Do you really not get that the homeless are considered powerless and often used as an easy way to inject drama/color/character into a photo?

No Snark and I get that, but I was trying to get people to think about what they are saying. Nobody seems to have an issue photographing other strangers when those strangers are perceived as seemingly having their **** together. We do not know that though and when not to photograph and when to photograph is not as clear cut and as simple as avoiding homeless people. Not all homeless people are dangerous or mean.

 

[tunalegs]

What a great critically thought out post from someone who obviously should know what they are talking about.
Watching from the sidelines on this topic I cannot help but be reminded of Marilyn Manson's quote " I would not say anything, i would just shut the #$%@ up and listen"
It is telling that only two other people have commented on what was written by hepcat.

Probably because it was largely beside the point and the insinuation that homeless should be in prison rather than on the street... well. 🙄 It's an opinion I guess.

This was not a case of somebody going into the "bad part of town" out on the "wrong side of the tracks". It was a case of somebody getting stabbed to death on a busy street by some people apparently looking for negative attention. Most people commenting here seem to be missing the point entirely, the story is really not about photography at all, that is likely simply incidental to what may turn out to be "just" an act of random violence.

 

[kbg32]

One thing is for certain, there is a difference between someone who is on the street, and someone who seemingly lives there. I think the observation is close to 99% obvious. Of course no one knows what goes on in people's heads. One can't always know. A well dressed man/woman could very well have become homeless that very day by losing his job and having had lived on credit etc..

 

[jsrockit]

This was not a case of somebody going into the "bad part of town" out on the "wrong side of the tracks". It was a case of somebody getting stabbed to death on a busy street by some people apparently looking for negative attention.

BINGO! I didn't miss this at all.

 

[Rodchenko]

Is it an American thing to use 'homeless' as a noun rather than an adjective? In the UK, we use the phrase 'homeless person', which perhaps reminds us that it is a person after all.

 

[tunalegs]

Is it an American thing to use 'homeless' as a noun rather than an adjective? In the UK, we use the phrase 'homeless person', which perhaps reminds us that it is a person after all.

Nobody in the UK says things like "the wealthy" or "the elderly"?

Edit: after a quick look it seems they do.

 

[Nigel Meaby]

"For its part, the National Coalition for Homeless Veterans in the United States estimates that while only 8 percent of the general populace are veterans, those who served in the military account for nearly one-fifth of the adult homeless population.

Official counts are likely low since they leave out veterans who never register at a homeless facility - those who go from friend's house to friend's house, sleep in cars, in the woods or on the streets. It also leaves out those who don't admit to being veterans."

Make of this what you will....hero one day...marginalized the next?

Here is the link to the full article
http://www.streetnewsservice.org/news/2011/november/feed-306/more-ex-soldiers-at-risk-of-homelessness.aspx

 

[jsrockit]

Is it an American thing to use 'homeless' as a noun rather than an adjective? In the UK, we use the phrase 'homeless person', which perhaps reminds us that it is a person after all.

Perhaps, but despite what people in other countries think of the US, I'm pretty sure we do not treat homeless people any worse than other countries. Sure, there are mean people that do rude things. But there are plenty of kind people trying to help as well.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homeless

 

[Rodchenko]

Nobody in the UK says things like "the wealthy" or "the elderly"?

Edit: after a quick look it seems they do.

Aye, and we talk of 'the homeless' collectively, too. But we never speak of 'a wealthy' or 'an elderly'.

jsrockit, your dictionary link does not include a noun usage.

And I am pretty certain that, in general, the UK, with its more reasonable and comprehensive system of social security, both treats homeless people better, and prevents more from entering that state, albeit the numbers of rough sleepers has increased significantly under the Tories as that support is hacked away.

 

[tunalegs]

Aye, and we talk of 'the homeless' collectively, too. But we never speak of 'a wealthy' or 'an elderly'

The only person I've seen write a "a homeless" in this thread also stated that they are not in North America. It may well be a language issue rather than an insidious attempt to dehumanize.

 

[jsrockit]

jsrockit, your dictionary link does not include a noun usage.

It sure did...

(as plural noun the homeless) charities for the homeless

And I am pretty certain that, in general, the UK, with its more reasonable and comprehensive system of social security, both treats homeless people better, and prevents more from entering that state, albeit the numbers of rough sleepers has increased significantly under the Tories as that support is hacked away.

A little bit of research shows that the USA has a larger percentage of homeless people vs. total population than the UK, so I concede. My point though is that not everyone in the US treats homeless people horribly. The US is not full of brainless and heartless people. We are just the wipping boy for other countries.

 

[raid]

I took only a few photos of homeless peopke that were standing in the midst of many people in the French Quarer, and I was always a distance away.

 

[kbg32]

Shame on you Raid!

😉