Man Attacked in SF for Photographing Accident

[DamenS]

"Bottom line unless you know you can and will win the fight it's best to find a way out."

No, Tim. If you are discussing physical fighting then:

a) Define "winning" for me - outside of the confines of ring combat.

b) How is it possible to know one WILL win?

c) Why is it not best to try to find a way out, even IF you could "know" you were going to "win"?

 

[Highway 61]

A young Orwellian took my picture when I was looking at the road map outside the rest stop. I turned and looked and saw only an iPhone. I said: "An iPhone and Instagram? How low end."

How are you sure this young person was an "Orwellian" ? Not all young people are nerds or dumb individuals. The photo he took might have been good. And in the hands of someone having an eyesight, an iPhone can be a good photographic tool.

Photos of people looking at roadmaps can be interesting. I took this one a few years ago. Not using an iPhone and using a Rolleiflex, but an iPhone would have done it too.

 

[radi(c)al_cam]

We can also thank the internet for the publication of all these ghoulish photos. They don't offend me, but offer the insight into what happened. They can reveal the truth.

It is the truth that is most offensive to the Orwellians. Hence the mass desire for "safe spaces" where they can retreat when so easily offended.

Well, yes. «Thin skinned bullies» are very common in today's Western world, whether you prefer a «1984», or a «Brave New World» comparison, it doesn't matter 😉

Reminds me of the Crestassians from Star Trek "Enterprise".

😕 Perhaps you mean Cardassians? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardassian

 

[robert blu]

What the photographer did inflamed the situation rather than defusing it. That, in a nutshell, is literally what caused the problem. I hate to be a poop here but smiling, apologizing, and then walking away may not feel as good as fighting back, but it will almost always defuse the confrontation.

Being in the right never actually protects you in the street. Being quick and understanding the mood around you, I like to call it "street smart" is your protection. If you have none than maybe you should decide to photograph other things.

Although some of HCB's methods may have some application today, not all of them will work. Such as waiting surreptitiously behind a wooden fence waiting for the right chubby guy to try and jump over a puddle. If some one caught you doing that today you would be considered a pervert at work.

Finally, even today this type of stuff happens rarely. But, if you are concerned about it you probably aren't the right person to take pictures on the street.

Yes well said
robert

 

[MCTuomey]

not to be contrary, because it's sensible to do what one can to defuse confrontation, but are we implying that the photog attacked is somehow even partly responsible because he failed, in pioneer's words, to defuse the confrontation? that the victim is guilty or deficient by saying the wrong thing and, by virtue of some element of provocation, got what he deserved?

good to consider alternative ways to handle such challenges, but regardless of what the photog did or didn't do, he was assaulted. to the extent the perpetrator was provoked - perceived lack of respect by the photographer for the accident victims - the provocation was non-threatening to life or limb. if the act of photography is considered provocation, and responsibility for the response of the provoked is in any meaningful sense the photographer's, we're in a treacherous place.

i do hope the justice system metes out appropriate punishment to the attacker(s).

 

[jsrockit]

What the photographer did inflamed the situation rather than defusing it. That, in a nutshell, is literally what caused the problem. I hate to be a poop here but smiling, apologizing, and then walking away may not feel as good as fighting back, but it will almost always defuse the confrontation.

I can understand this if the guy was photographing these three people, but we don't know that he was. In those cases, I always think it is ok for someone to complain about me photographing them. I will apologize in those situations.

However, I was under the impression that these individuals weren't the ones being photographed, but took exception to him photographing an accident. We also don't know what was said at all. In that case, I might be annoyed that they aren't minding their business too. You are right though... it is easier to walk away.... but when one is not in the moment and is thinking rationally, it's easy to say.

 

[DamenS]

I think this really has less to do with photography than we are suggesting - Yes, that was the inciting factor, but - for me at least - the most telling factor was that I thought the photographer sounded like an absolute ass wad in the interviews after he was assaulted (of course he would have been angry, and I've attempted to factor that into the equation) but I believe it is likely both parties were "immovable objects" and utterly self-righteous and that (pure speculation on my part, but based on observations of human nature) it is likely that words were said during the confrontation (on both sides) that were incendiary and (possibly) unsavoury. We'll probably never know the full extent of what "went down", but really, haven't we ALL seen ****e like this before? It may have "started" with a camera, but note - the situation WAS just verbal and "posturing" for a while after the "camera" thing - it was the words and attitudes that did it. Please note - this is all speculation; by me and by you. There will be no "answer", per se.

 

[noisycheese]

I cringe every time this happens.

Because in this day and age when someone can only see with their "rights" glasses on instead of the bigger picture of what should be modern common courtesy, common sense and empathy that reflects the times we are in....we get closer to losing those rights.

Idiot.

So where was the "modern common courtesy, common sense and empathy" of the two females that got in the photographer's face to begin with?

And where was the "modern common courtesy, common sense and empathy" of the cowardly thug who scurried around behind the photographer and sucker punched him in the back of the neck??

"Modern common courtesy, common sense and empathy" are a two way street, unless you suppose that for some reason the photographer had it coming. Is that your position?

Punching someone in the back of the neck can easily result in a spinal cord injury which will cause a lifelong disability and/or paralysis; it is not a punch that is thrown without malicious intent. As such, that kind of cowardly attack is defined in most jurisdictions as felony assault with intent to do grave bodily harm.

 

[noisycheese]

What the photographer did inflamed the situation rather than defusing it. That, in a nutshell, is literally what caused the problem. I hate to be a poop here but smiling, apologizing, and then walking away may not feel as good as fighting back, but it will almost always defuse the confrontation.

Being in the right never actually protects you in the street. Being quick and understanding the mood around you, I like to call it "street smart" is your protection. If you have none than maybe you should decide to photograph other things.

Although some of HCB's methods may have some application today, not all of them will work. Such as waiting surreptitiously behind a wooden fence waiting for the right chubby guy to try and jump over a puddle. If someone caught you doing that today you would be considered a pervert at work.

Finally, even today this type of stuff happens rarely. But, if you are concerned about it you probably aren't the right person to take pictures on the street.

If you look at the video, there was an exchange of words, then the photographer turned and walked away, ending the confrontation. Only then did the three crusaders initiate a second confrontation in which the male of the group ran behind the photographer and violently punched him in the back of the neck. The three people started a second confrontation. Then the male escalated it from a verbal exchange to a physical attack. There is no justification for his cowardly attack.

With all due respect, Pioneer - there is a school of thought floating about that boils down to something along the lines of "Well, if the photographer hadn't been out there making photographs to begin with, none of this would have happened to begin with. Therefore, he bears at least half the responsibility for the attack, if not all of it." In other words, by some irrational and convoluted thinking process that holds no water in the eyes of the law, the photographer brought it upon himself.

That's not the way the law works. And being a street photographer, I am growing weary of the "blame the photographer" thinking. It holds no water ethically, logically or in terms of the law.

If it does, where do we draw the line? What other justifications are there for unprovoked physical assault on the streets? Who has the supposed right to beat a person on the street who has done nothing to the assailant? Who gets to decide who gets to attack who and for what supposed justification?

 

[presspass]

I've had this happen several times, once when I was kicked from behind and knocked to the ground while photographing a fire. The terminally self-righteous cannot see beyond their own ideas. Sometimes they should be ignored, but there are times when you have to stand up for your rights. When you do, it helps to have a lot of younger friends, volunteer firefighters all, standing around holding Halligan tools and axes. Their presence defuses defuses the situation very quickly. BTW, if you do decide to defend yourself with your F-2 and MD2, use the sharp edge of the motordrive, not the camera lens.

 

[pepeguitarra]

What the photographer did inflamed the situation rather than defusing it. That, in a nutshell, is literally what caused the problem. I hate to be a poop here but smiling, apologizing, and then walking away may not feel as good as fighting back, but it will almost always defuse the confrontation.

Being in the right never actually protects you in the street. Being quick and understanding the mood around you, I like to call it "street smart" is your protection. If you have none than maybe you should decide to photograph other things.

Although some of HCB's methods may have some application today, not all of them will work. Such as waiting surreptitiously behind a wooden fence waiting for the right chubby guy to try and jump over a puddle. If someone caught you doing that today you would be considered a pervert at work.

Finally, even today this type of stuff happens rarely. But, if you are concerned about it you probably aren't the right person to take pictures on the street.

Agree, apologize, move on quickly and disappear. There is a reason Leicas are used for street shooting. They are small and not intimidating. I could not see the guy's camera in the video. I did see he was a bit tall and kind of big guy, so he probably put some fuel to the fire.

 

[pepeguitarra]

Garry Winogrand

Garry Winogrand

I learned from him that most people will answer yes to your question about taken a picture of them. To those who were surprised after he took it, he said: I just made you famous and walk away.
He also used the Leica M4 with the Canon 28/2.8 set at f8 at the hyperfocal distance and shoot without looking through the view finder. Some people disagree, but I have several photos of him doing exactly that, walking along looking at a different side and shooting with the right hand. He even taught his son to do the same. He kept moving.

 

[noisycheese]

I've had this happen several times, once when I was kicked from behind and knocked to the ground while photographing a fire. The terminally self-righteous cannot see beyond their own ideas. Sometimes they should be ignored, but there are times when you have to stand up for your rights...

@presspass,
I'm sorry to hear that you were subjected to this attack. I hope you were not seriously injured and I hope your attacker ended up behind bars. There is NO justification for this kind of nonsense.


I have been complained at on occasion for making street photography but not very often, perhaps one time out of 200. It comes with the territory and I accept that.

80-90% of the time the complainer is not the subject, nor are they with the subject. It is almost always someone who is not at all involved in the photographic situation.

In other words, 80-90% of the time, it's someone else who has anointed themselves as the arbiter of who, when, where, how and why other people get to make street photography. The arrogance of that kind of thinking cannot be overstated.

These crusaders are not fun to deal with, but I accept that once out of 200 street photography outings, I will experience one of these self anointed anti street photography police. They can complain at me all they want; that is their right.

BUT: Complaining is where their rights end. These people have absolutely no right to attempt to coerce, intimidate or force me or any other street photographer to stop photographing in the public environment. And they sure as hell have no right to spit on or lay hands on a photographer, punch them, kick them or touch them in any manner.

That's the law in the United States: Complaining is lawful; attacking is unlawful.

It would sure be nice if photographers who do not engage in street photography could bring themselves to come down on the side of the law regarding this issue and stop blaming the photographer for the unlawful actions of ignorant people. Throwing street photographers under the emotion driven bus of a minority opinion is counterproductive to all photographers.

 

[KM-25]

So where was the "modern common courtesy, common sense and empathy" of the two females that got in the photographer's face to begin with?

And where was the "modern common courtesy, common sense and empathy" of the cowardly thug who scurried around behind the photographer and sucker punched him in the back of the neck??

"Modern common courtesy, common sense and empathy" are a two way street, unless you suppose that for some reason the photographer had it coming. Is that your position?

Punching someone in the back of the neck can easily result in a spinal cord injury which will cause a lifelong disability and/or paralysis; it is not a punch that is thrown without malicious intent. As such, that kind of cowardly attack is defined in most jurisdictions as felony assault with intent to do grave bodily harm.

The video, the article, the outcome, everyone got what they deserved. The "perps" who decided to become anti-photo vigilantes got arrested and charged and the person with the camera got support from those who shot video of it , the police in making the arrests and most importantly, a semi hard lesson in conduct and situational awareness as a person pointing a camera in the direction of a sensitive if not troubling event.

But.....everyone lost here, because once again, it puts both amateur photo enthusiasts and photographers in poor light.

In my 28 years as a photographer often performing the role as photojournalist, I have had very few run ins with people and in every case, I have let them have their say because I care about the people I photograph, make it known. That does not mean I back away from the job I have to do but instead, let the people know that for the most part, I am on their side.

But in the past few years, I see very troubling trends to the contrary, like photographing people is now some form of target shooting with no regard for those who are being photographed and what publishing the photo can do. I see people caring less about other people, not just those with a camera either.

I could give *so* many case points to both sides of this argument that I have seen in the past 6 months alone, but I won't because several others have eloquently spoken about the need for modern common courtesy, common sense and empathy that reflects the times ( not HCB ) we are now in and the challenges we face, rights or not.

You can stomp your street photography enthusiast feet all you want, but I know *I* won't be the one with the headstone that reads, "Here lies Silentcheese, he stood up for his Rights until the very end".

 

[mpaniagua]

not to be contrary, because it's sensible to do what one can to defuse confrontation, but are we implying that the photog attacked is somehow even partly responsible because he failed, in pioneer's words, to defuse the confrontation? that the victim is guilty or deficient by saying the wrong thing and, by virtue of some element of provocation, got what he deserved?

good to consider alternative ways to handle such challenges, but regardless of what the photog did or didn't do, he was assaulted. to the extent the perpetrator was provoked - perceived lack of respect by the photographer for the accident victims - the provocation was non-threatening to life or limb. if the act of photography is considered provocation, and responsibility for the response of the provoked is in any meaningful sense the photographer's, we're in a treacherous place.

i do hope the justice system metes out appropriate punishment to the attacker(s).

Provoked or not, he got a beating. I think that what Pioneer implies is related to avoid such dangers and not impliying that he deserve it. We you face inflamed people, the smart thing to do is to try to avoid the fighting, unless something bigger is on the stake (i.e. somebody life). The guy got into the argument and didnt walk away in a smart way. Besides, IMHO, is pretty damn foolish to turn you back on inflamed people 🙂. Walk away (or rather run if you can) while looking for possible hits from those people.


If you walk into the night with an expensive looking camera on a dark alley, you are inviting a beating a robbery. You may have the right to walk into the alley and all that, but is not very smart to do so. Same with this 🙂

 

[noisycheese]

The video, the article, the outcome, everyone got what they deserved...

...You can stomp your street photography enthusiast feet all you want, but I know *I* won't be the one with the headstone that reads, "Here lies Silentcheese, he stood up for his Rights until the very end".

So in your book, the photographer who was attacked from behind in a manner that could have permanently disabled him "got what he deserved."

Nice.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it is highly unlikely that I will be lying under the headstone you propose; see my post #57 above.

It must be a terrible let down for you, but I do not approach street photography as Bruce Gilden does - jamming a camera and flash in people's faces and blasting away. I am an adherent of Cartier-Bresson's technique: "A velvet hand, a hawk’s eye- these we should all have."

I photograph with discretion and consideration for my subjects. All I ask is to be treated the same in return - that, and to not be attacked for making photos in the public environment.

 

[KM-25]

So in your book, the photographer who was attacked from behind in a manner that could have permanently disabled him "got what he deserved. Nice.

I think you misunderstood the point I made so here is what I meant he "deserved":

"the person with the camera got support from those who shot video of it , the police in making the arrests and most importantly, a semi hard lesson in conduct and situational awareness as a person pointing a camera in the direction of a sensitive if not troubling event."

He did not deserve to be hit, but he did deserve to learn a semi-hard lesson in that he will hopefully conduct himself differently next time around.

 

[mpaniagua]

So in your book, the photographer who was attacked from behind in a manner that could have permanently disabled him "got what he deserved. Nice.

Sorry to disappoint you, but it is highly unlikely that I will be lying under your proposed headstone.

On my book, he didnt deserve that beating. No one deserve a beating. But, IMHO, he started a fight (he was obviosly arguing with the woman) and then walked away from them, leaving them angry and upset, turning his back on not one, but 3 angry people. I dont know you, but I think that was a pretty stupidxx thing to do.

 

[mpaniagua]

I think you misunderstood the point I made so here is what I meant he "deserved":

"the person with the camera got support from those who shot video of it , the police in making the arrests and most importantly, a semi hard lesson in conduct and situational awareness as a person pointing a camera in the direction of a sensitive if not troubling event."

He did not deserve to be hit, but he did deserve to learn a semi-hard lesson in that he will hopefully conduct himself differently next time around.

+1.

Walk home lesson: Try to be smart and stay out of trouble, because a beating is a beating even if you didnt deseve it 🙂

 

[Fotobot]

What the photographer did inflamed the situation rather than defusing it. That, in a nutshell, is literally what caused the problem. I hate to be a poop here but smiling, apologizing, and then walking away may not feel as good as fighting back, but it will almost always defuse the confrontation.

Being in the right never actually protects you in the street. Being quick and understanding the mood around you, I like to call it "street smart" is your protection. If you have none than maybe you should decide to photograph other things.

Although some of HCB's methods may have some application today, not all of them will work. Such as waiting surreptitiously behind a wooden fence waiting for the right chubby guy to try and jump over a puddle. If someone caught you doing that today you would be considered a pervert at work.

Finally, even today this type of stuff happens rarely. But, if you are concerned about it you probably aren't the right person to take pictures on the street.

First, the photographer WALKED AWAY from those people when he was sucker punched. Walking away is not "inflaming the situation" as you claim. You are strangely giving those thugs every benefit in your interpretation. In my book, people who throw sucker punches and people who kick people on the ground are wrong by definition. You are wrong to blame the photographer in this situation.

Second, HCB was not waiting "surreptitiously" behind a wooden fence to get the photo of the puddle jumping man. Where did you get that idea? Please don't start a false, completely unfounded internet myth about that. He got the shot through a fence because there happened to be a gap between the planks of the fence, not because he was waiting "surreptitiously" for the "right chubby guy". The jumper is not even chubby, so your memory of the shot is somehow skewed. Here is the moment in HCB's own words:

"There was a plank fence around some repairs behind the Gare Saint Lazare train station. I happened to be peeking through a gap in the fence with my camera at the moment the man jumped. The space between the planks was not entirely wide enough for my lens, which is the reason why the picture is cut off on the left." — HCB