Man Attacked in SF for Photographing Accident

[noisycheese]

There is a segment of the public that asks, "what gives a photographer the right to photograph people on the street without their permission?" Perhaps the more salient question is, "what gives psychotic ***hole thugs the right to attack a photographer on the street without his permission?"

Or perhaps the most relevant question of all is the one I have been asking for the past few years: "What the hell is wrong with people??"

This kind of thuggery is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem, which is twofold: (1.) What is charitably called western culture is a train wreck (particularly in the U.S.), and (2.) there is an ever growing percentage of people walking the streets of major cities who are either violent thugs, mentally unstable or diseased, drunk or stoned, psychopaths, and/or lastly - all of the above.

I'm not sure how a person avoids this kind of unprovoked attack when photographing on the streets. Not unless you want to run up the white flag and stop making street photography images altogether, which simply is not an option in my book.

In any civilized culture, violent thugs do not get to rule the streets; they do not get to intimidate, coerce and attack people who have done nothing to anyone.

Man Attacked in SF for Photographing Accident
http://petapixel.com/2016/08/29/man-attacked-sf-photographing-accident/

 

[mcfingon]

I suppose you have to have a finely-tuned awareness about when you may cause offense using a camera, however it's hard to know in advance when someone is going to have a verbally or physically abusive reaction to what you are doing. From what I've read, Cartier-Bresson was the master of being quick, quiet and gone when doing street photos, and had a sixth-sense feeling to get out minus photo when the situation could be life-threatening, like with German soldiers in Paris in WWII.

 

[DamenS]

That's an appallingly one-sided (and inaccurate) assessment of a difficult, and interesting, situation. Did the photographer deserve to get hit - no of course not, however you seem to have no understanding of the relatively NORMAL (not psychotic) belief of people that photographing fatalities in a tragic accident in an urban environment is somewhat "ghoulish" and potentially disrespectful. Not to mention your lack of understanding that such a situation will ALWAYS lead to heightened emotions in onlookers and involved parties - because that is NORMAL. I had the opportunity to take photos of an accident a few days ago, but didn't - and wouldn't - because I assessed it as being morally wrong. Other people may have taken photos, and I would not have hit them, or even said something to them ... but if I had have taken my camera out, I would have felt like a sociopath with no feelings. Perhaps this is just a case of the "psychopaths" you mention having a power struggle with the "sociopath" I mention?

 

[Dan Daniel]

Key section- "Muller says he told the man to “get his girl out of my face"..."

Looking at the video, Muller was giving as good as he was getting in the shouting. I don't think that 'unprovoked' is the proper assessment, even based on what is on the video (something was going on to get the videographer to start filming, but we don't see that).The punching and kicking is wrong and the three people should be held to account for that. But something tells me that the Muller guy isn't going to learn much about how he played a part in this mess.

(HCB was also a well-dressed French man with money during a colonialist era. It was his "right" to go where he wanted.)

 

[daveleo]

I think he was attacked for arguing back with the three of them, not for actually taking the pictures.
Possibly a case of "An irresistible force (the three) meets an immovable object (him)."
Good that they were arrested. The sucker punch made them the bad guys.

 

[Bill Clark]

The world has changed. Attitudes are different now and expressed in ways not seen or used in the past.

If you're going to photograph folks and objects, sometimes expect situations where people object and express it in different ways.

Decades ago, when I was single, a good place to photograph people was at the airport terminal. Try doing that now.

Is the story written by George Orwell (Eric Blair) coming true?

 

[robert blu]

We should stop to think of HCB as a reference when photographing in the streets. Times are different. Times changed. People changed. We do not like it but it's the reality.
Today if we want to photograph people we must be one of them, spending time with them prior to start to photograph. This is not so different than years ago. I just saw yesterday a docu about Bruce Davidson and he explained this, being almost part of the gang was the key to be able to make a certain kind of photography.
Of course street photography cannot be done in this way I think, I'm not into it, and yes as photographer we have, and I'm afraid we'll have even more problems. Respect and common sense help but in some cases much depend on whom we have in front of us. And we do not know who they are...
robert

 

[oftheherd]

From the video it appears the three just wanted to assert their superiority. What is interesting to me is the one of the women started the monkey dance. I wonder if that is a practiced routine or if the man felt some obligation to interject himself in an attempt to support or look good to the women. I guess I should say male rather than man. That is not a manly act, to strike someone from behind when that person is trying to disengage.

Times have indeed changed. If prosecuted at all, the three will probably get probation and maybe community service. In times past, they would have more likely gone to jail.

As to the photographer, he had a perfect legal right to photograph anything in public view. What the morals are can only be answered by the photographer and the other onlookers. If there were legal questions that could only be answered by his photographs, and he made them available to police, what has he done wrong? If he did it in hopes of selling the photos to a news outlet, is he wrong?

Regardless, anyone taking photographs on the street must be prepared for people who mistakenly think they have a legal right to object, and may get violent about it. The photographer in the video seems willing enough to remove himself.

Would any of use been willing to do that then? Would we have watched our backs as we did so? Might we have left at a different angle to help watch our backs? I guess those are things we need to think about ahead of time. Shouldn't have to, but yes, times have changed.

 

[jsrockit]

(2.) there is an ever growing percentage of people walking the streets of major cities who are either violent thugs, mentally unstable or diseased, drunk or stoned, psychopaths, and/or lastly - all of the above.

"Stoned" people don't attack...

I'm not sure how a person avoids this kind of unprovoked attack when photographing on the streets. Not unless you want to run up the white flag and stop making street photography images altogether, which simply is not an option in my book.

There are always going to be dumb people in the world who think your business is theirs and that they know better than you. However, when you photograph on the street, your business can sometimes be other people's business.

 

[Highway 61]

We should stop to think of HCB as a reference when photographing in the streets. Times are different. Times changed. People changed. We do not like it but it's the reality.
Today if we want to photograph people we must be one of them, spending time with them prior to start to photograph. This is not so different than years ago. I just saw yesterday a docu about Bruce Davidson and he explained this, being almost part of the gang was the key to be able to make a certain kind of photography.
Of course street photography cannot be done in this way I think, I'm not into it, and yes as photographer we have, and I'm afraid we'll have even more problems. Respect and common sense help but in some cases much depend on whom we have in front of us. And we do not know who they are...
robert

I fully agree with this sensible and toned post.

As an aside, this SF case looks a bit ridiculous.

 

[cz23]

We should stop to think of HCB as a reference when photographing in the streets. Times are different. Times changed. People changed. We do not like it but it's the reality....

Robert, if I understand you correctly, I disagree. True, times and people have changed. But HCB's model of quickly and discretely capturing what he called the "lightning instant of give and take" remains a valid approach today.

Look at some of HCB's photographs and I think you could easily imagine yourself or anyone else here taking them. Some obviously involve waiting for a scene to develop. Others are no doubt sudden flashes of perception. In either case, his fast, discrete, somewhat removed working method seems as relevant today as ever.

John

 

[KM-25]

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.

 

[Bill Clark]

John, I agree.

Do you think his (HCB) choice of camera helped him?

The other day, visiting with a photographer, he had a nifty to do street photography idea. Using one of the new Fuji digital, looks like a Leica, he would pretend to take photos, up high, then, pretend to look at them. While seeming to look on the screen he was actually taking photographs. Not my cup of tea but it was interesting.

 

[mpaniagua]

Interesting related reading:

http://content.photojojo.com/photo-technique/tips/legal-rights-of-photographers/

 

[MCTuomey]

if you shoot on the street, you're at risk. how you manage the risk, well, that's an individual thing. do it long enough, in dangerous places among dangerous people, or even not-so-dangerous people and places, and you probably will suffer an attack. not an activity for the uncommitted or weak-spirited. and an idiotic approach only increases the odds of an attack, significantly.

one thing for sure, indignation will not help you when the moment comes and the assailant is determined.

edit: the photog was lucky - he prevailed physically. could have been much worse.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

Frist of all, all three attackers were arrested. This is the evidence what in USA the western civilization is doing well.
And for the second, if you pissed off some vacuous, well, it happens.
Happened to him, happened to me, happens with many of us...

 

[Jdi]

This kind of thuggery is not the problem, it is a symptom of the problem, which is twofold: (1.) What is charitably called western culture is a train wreck (particularly in the U.S.), and (2.) there is an ever growing percentage of people walking the streets of major cities who are either violent thugs, mentally unstable or diseased, drunk or stoned, psychopaths, and/or lastly - all of the above.

Sorry but I find this view of society sort of creepy and disturbing. More so than a fight amongst people who were arguing.

 

[mpaniagua]

umm I dont disagree about the current cultural situation on the global scale,but I think in this case, it was just a case of lose tempers. The guy with the two girls didnt look as a bully to me, but he lose his tempers once the Muller guy said something to the girl.

Like its been said before, the Muller guy didnt deserve to be hit, but, the way I see it, he surely added fuel to the fire. Ive found myself on the same place before, and when you see a person that is arguing with you like the two women there, you step aside and let it go. Its not like Im a journalist and the global peace depends on me taking photos.

 

[MrFujicaman]

Ever notice on youtube how many fights are caused by fat women egging a man on ?

 

[robert blu]

Robert, if I understand you correctly, I disagree. True, times and people have changed. But HCB's model of quickly and discretely capturing what he called the "lightning instant of give and take" remains a valid approach today.

Look at some of HCB's photographs and I think you could easily imagine yourself or anyone else here taking them. Some obviously involve waiting for a scene to develop. Others are no doubt sudden flashes of perception. In either case, his fast, discrete, somewhat removed working method seems as relevant today as ever.

John

I agree, when we look at HCB example as shooting in a discrete way with a non intrusive approach you are correct, that should be the way opposed as I the "gun machine" shooting on any interesting potential subject.

What I was mainly meaning is that because of the change in the times, in the people and related sensitivity we must be aware of the possible reaction of people who feel disturbed.

I guess they we're not so disturbed in the HCB times.

Thanks for pointing this out

robert