Man Attacked in SF for Photographing Accident

[Fotobot]

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.

I am struggling to understand your comment, especially considering your background in photography. What *exactly* was the photographer's lapse in "situational awareness" such that he "deserved" a "semi-hard lesson"?? As far as I know, there isn't video of him photographing the accident, so we don't know how exactly he was behaving — not enough to judge him anyway. I don't see any problem with photographing the accident itself. If you're suggesting that photographing the accident is wrong, then I firmly disagree.

 

[mpaniagua]

"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

ummm try putting yourself on the beholder side. Imagine you step into a guy looking through a fence, and there is women and children on the other side of the fence. You question what he is upto, and he says " I happened to be peeking through a gap in the fence with my camera at the moment the women and children pass by". Be honest, dont you find it at least a bit suspicious? I dont know you, but I would call the cops. 🙂

The question here is not if you are wrong or not, but what you are inviting on yourself when you act in what may seems a suspicious way.


Same with the guy that got beated. What if he simply said "sorry, you are wrong. I wil delete the pictures ok?" Im sure the beating would had been avoided, regardless if he had every right to take the picture (he had the right, by the way). If he had won and avoided the beating, what would had he won? ego boost? not a smart way to go about one life, I think.

 

[MCTuomey]

foot stomping? finger wagging and finding fault with a guy's shooting habits? wait, maybe i get it. if everyone doesn't adopt lamb-like meekness in the face of self-righteous confrontation, then getting beat-up must be their own fault ... right?

there will often, if not always, be someone who thinks photographing one subject or another is insensitive, crass, self-indulgent, or illegal. or, that the photograph is taken in an insensitive or stupid way. that someone is as equally entitled to hold his opinion of the photographer as the photographer is entitled to shoot the subject or scene is clear. no one is entitled to resort to violence, however, and ascribing responsibility to the victim is an indictment in itself.

i've encountered my share of adverse reactions to shooting in public, although i can't say i've been out there for 25 years. sometimes polite and apologetic works and sometimes not. sometimes aggressive insistence works and sometimes not. completely situation dependent. who am i to judge what'll work and what won't for someone else? or to criticize with hindsight what someone else did?

my son was threatened by an unwilling subject last weekend in a rough section of Detroit while on assignment. "Get the f**k out of here or I'll kill you." he left, real quickly, without a word, and is ok. right choice, light feet, and some luck. if he'd been hurt, i sure wouldn't blame him or wish that he'd been more polite or tell him he shouldn't have been there.

 

[mpaniagua]

i've encountered my share of adverse reactions to shooting in public, although i can't say i've been out there for 25 years. sometimes polite and apologetic works and sometimes not. sometimes aggressive insistence works and sometimes not. completely situation dependent. who am i to judge what'll work and what won't? or to criticize with hindsight what someone else did?.

Agree with the part about situation dependent. If you face someone that is polite, you may engage on a nice chat and talk about one rights and so.

But if you face 3 angry people you dont argue, but run and do damage control instead.

Take you kid's example. He did had the right to stay in the place he was. He choose to walk away. Smart move. By all rights he should had stayed where he was but the smart thing was to walk away. Had he been beated or killed, it was obvious that the agressor was on fault, but your kid wouldnt be less hurt or dead if he was on right uum?

 

[mpaniagua]

I am struggling to understand your comment, especially considering your background in photography. What *exactly* was the photographer's lapse in "situational awareness" such that he "deserved" a "semi-hard lesson"?? As far as I know, there isn't video of him photographing the accident, so we don't know how exactly he was behaving — not enough to judge him anyway. I don't see any problem with photographing the accident itself. If you're suggesting that photographing the accident is wrong, then I firmly disagree.

What I see on the video is someone strongly arguing with 3 people, and then leaving the angry and turn his back on them.

There are several lessons tha I could learn from this :

a) Dont argue with angry people if what is on stake is not worth it.
b) Dont argue with women 😛 (sorry couldnt avoid that one).
c) DONT walk away from angry people, back open to them.

On my book, hes was pretty lucky to walk on his own 2 feets from there. Ive seen people that took a beating like that and dont walk away on their own, and in some cases, dont walk away at all.

Be smart, life is too beutiful to risk it on something as vain as ego. Risk it only on something of equal value.

 

[KM-25]

I am struggling to understand your comment, especially considering your background in photography. What *exactly* was the photographer's lapse in "situational awareness" such that he "deserved" a "semi-hard lesson"?? As far as I know, there isn't video of him photographing the accident, so we don't know how exactly he was behaving — not enough to judge him anyway. I don't see any problem with photographing the accident itself. If you're suggesting that photographing the accident is wrong, then I firmly disagree.

Well, to be fair, I was not there so I have limited scope of context.

But from what I can see in the video, the verbal confrontation goes on for about 13 seconds before the camera guy turns his back and walks away. So maybe it is safe to assume that the person who chose to video the scene watched it for about that amount of time before they decided to hit record.

That is ( In theory ) about 30 seconds of verbal back and forth before the guy walks away. In my direct professional experience, that is NOT de-escalating a situation. And a big lesson...? As he walked away, he could clearly hear and know that the punks were not done with him yet and following him with his BACK TURNED!!!!

Are you KIDDING me?

That is where HIS lesson comes in man, seriously! Had I conducted my self like that while covering the LA riots I would have a headstone that reads, "Here lies SilentCheese, should have had those rear facing eyeball implants done after all."

 

[MCTuomey]

Well, to be fair, I was not there so I have limited scope of context .... That is where HIS lesson comes in man, seriously! Had I conducted my self like that while covering the LA riots I would have a headstone that reads, "Here lies SilentCheese, should have had those rear facing eyeball implants done after all."

He wasn't covering riots. Or a situation where apparently he felt the need to watch his own back. In hindsight, easy for anyone to judge that he should have done differently. Glad to hear you're willing and equipped to make those judgements.

 

[KM-25]

He wasn't covering riots. Or a situation where apparently he felt the need to watch his own back. .

So let me get this straight: Camera or not, after at least 30 seconds of heated verbal confrontation on the street with three ( 3 ) people who clearly want to be in a tussle and could even be armed, you would not feel the need to watch *your* back???

You can't be serious...LOL!!

 

[ferider]

There is no camera in the video; I can come up with several hypothetical scenarios in which Muller appears not only as a victim. For instance

- he dumped one of the two girls that same morning (or worse). The guy who assaults him is her brother.
- somebody died after the accident because he didn't help but took photos instead. Or he stood in the way of a good Samaritan.
etc.

I'm not defending the attacker. But I wish we could wait for due process.

Roland.

 

[MCTuomey]

So let me get this straight: Camera or not, after at least 30 seconds of heated verbal confrontation on the street with three ( 3 ) people who clearly want to be in a tussle and could even be armed, you would not feel the need to watch *your* back???

You can't be serious...

You miss my point. I'm not going to judge his situation. I wasn't there. The video is real short, don't have a good feel for the larger context.

 

[BlackXList]

That's why I limit my time in San Francisco, I used to go there all the time as I live very close. But now no way, it is full of people like that (and worse). The city government has lost control of order in San Francisco.

I think you're confusing San Francisco and Juarez.

I spend time in SF, and not just the nicest parts by a long shot, and my better half is an EMT there and in Oakland, neither of us remotely recognise this description of it.

 

[pepeguitarra]

... 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".

In that case, you will be dead right!

 

[pepeguitarra]

Journalist

Journalist

I do play the journalist card. I carry with me a name tag with my blog name and big letters that say JOURNALIST. I have gotten some good shots that way. When the police look at me, I show the tag and kind of OK. Then move quickly to take the last few. BTW, San Francisco is not what it used to be. People get assaulted while walking the downtown streets at night. Most of the time are homeless criminals who do that. Also, I occasionally attend meetings in public buildings and have to walk carefully because of the feces on the sidewalks. The place where homeless defecate.

 

[pepeguitarra]

I think you're confusing San Francisco and Juarez.

I spend time in SF, and not just the nicest parts by a long shot, and my better half is an EMT there and in Oakland, neither of us remotely recognise this description of it.

Actually, Oakland has improved a lot more than expected. I think Jerry Brown did a good job there.

 

[charjohncarter]

I think you're confusing San Francisco and Juarez.

I spend time in SF, and not just the nicest parts by a long shot, and my better half is an EMT there and in Oakland, neither of us remotely recognise this description of it.

I agree it is a beautiful not a nice place, when you've crawled over the homeless, the druggies, and the panhandlers, you will finally get to see it. Just go to a Giants or Forty-Niners game. Or try to walk from Davies Hall to your car, the losers know when the concert is over (the Chronicle publishes it for them)(Oh, it's 3:45 PM I have to get to the Hall to scam) and are always there. We have, I hope had, a program where people could donate their small amounts left on their BART (rapid transit) cards so the homeless can sleep on the BART trains. I don't need to tell you what the bathrooms at the stations look like or the condition of the cars, let alone a homeless sleeping on two seats so the un-subsidized have to stand. Another rule in SF is don't leave a restaurant with a doggie bag, it is almost a criminal offense in 'The City' to refuse to give it to a beggar.

Also, I think now Juarez is safer than 98th Ave. in Oakland.

 

[Fotobot]

Well, to be fair, I was not there so I have limited scope of context.

But from what I can see in the video, the verbal confrontation goes on for about 13 seconds before the camera guy turns his back and walks away. So maybe it is safe to assume that the person who chose to video the scene watched it for about that amount of time before they decided to hit record.

That is ( In theory ) about 30 seconds of verbal back and forth before the guy walks away. In my direct professional experience, that is NOT de-escalating a situation. And a big lesson...? As he walked away, he could clearly hear and know that the punks were not done with him yet and following him with his BACK TURNED!!!!

Are you KIDDING me?

That is where HIS lesson comes in man, seriously! Had I conducted my self like that while covering the LA riots I would have a headstone that reads, "Here lies SilentCheese, should have had those rear facing eyeball implants done after all."

Right, to be fair, you were not there, so you have limited scope of context. That much I agree with.

But then you proceed to be unfair. You theorize 30 seconds of verbal back and forth. So you're giving the thugs the benefit of a doubt in your theory, imagining the photographer somehow debated too much. You have no idea how the discussion started. Maybe it started with the photographer calmly explaining his purpose. Again, you have no idea.

Also, in your theory, the photographer is somehow supposed to foresee that people who took issue with his prior photography, which he has stopped, might follow him and assault him. I suppose a seasoned pro photographer should develop that sort of prescience, but it seems unfair to put that burden on a guy who happens upon an accident scene, making him "deserve" a "hard" lesson. Doesn't seem like you are being fair to him.

 

[Fotobot]

ummm try putting yourself on the beholder side. Imagine you step into a guy looking through a fence, and there is women and children on the other side of the fence. You question what he is upto, and he says " I happened to be peeking through a gap in the fence with my camera at the moment the women and children pass by". Be honest, dont you find it at least a bit suspicious? I dont know you, but I would call the cops. 🙂

The question here is not if you are wrong or not, but what you are inviting on yourself when you act in what may seems a suspicious way.


Same with the guy that got beated. What if he simply said "sorry, you are wrong. I wil delete the pictures ok?" Im sure the beating would had been avoided, regardless if he had every right to take the picture (he had the right, by the way). If he had won and avoided the beating, what would had he won? ego boost? not a smart way to go about one life, I think.

I'm still amazed and a bit stunned when people on a photography forum express a blatantly anti-photography point of view. Your point of view is distinctly anti-photography.

Here is how. First, we're talking about the famous HCB shot, which has no women or children in it. So what the heck are you talking about? Why alter the scenario to try to cast suspicion on HCB's conduct?

Second, it is perfectly OK to look through a gap in a fence. Perfectly rational and OK and harmless. So where did you get the idea that it's somehow suspicious? In your imagination is where.

Third, the gap in the fence in the famous HCB shot is where some repairs were being done. Repairs at a train station. In many cities, holes are deliberately created in construction fencing so that people can see what's going on inside. Because it's perfectly OK to look at repairs and construction. Not suspicious to look.

Fourth, women and children, though irrelevant to the famous HCB photo, don't change the equation. It is perfectly OK to look at people in public, with or without a camera. But you say you would "call the cops". So you put yourself squarely in the class of people who would criminalize photography. So why do you even bother with photography if you have such an antipathy to it?

Fifth, photography is instant drawing. It's just making a picture. It's not some sort of wrongdoing. It doesn't hurt people. It's a way of witnessing life and questioning what there is in the world. If you think photography is some sort of wrongdoing, let me politely suggest that you might be more comfortable under a totalitarian regime where the authorities will use their muscle to back up your theory.

 

[noisycheese]

foot stomping? finger wagging and finding fault with a guy's shooting habits? wait, maybe i get it. if everyone doesn't adopt lamb-like meekness in the face of self-righteous confrontation, then getting beat-up must be their own fault ... right?

there will often, if not always, be someone who thinks photographing one subject or another is insensitive, crass, self-indulgent, or illegal. or, that the photograph is taken in an insensitive or stupid way. that someone is as equally entitled to hold his opinion of the photographer as the photographer is entitled to shoot the subject or scene is clear. no one is entitled to resort to violence, however, and ascribing responsibility to the victim is an indictment in itself.

i've encountered my share of adverse reactions to shooting in public, although i can't say i've been out there for 25 years. sometimes polite and apologetic works and sometimes not. sometimes aggressive insistence works and sometimes not. completely situation dependent. who am i to judge what'll work and what won't for someone else? or to criticize with hindsight what someone else did?

my son was threatened by an unwilling subject last weekend in a rough section of Detroit while on assignment. "Get the f**k out of here or I'll kill you." he left, real quickly, without a word, and is ok. right choice, light feet, and some luck. if he'd been hurt, i sure wouldn't blame him or wish that he'd been more polite or tell him he shouldn't have been there.

Hear, hear.

Blaming the photographer for the sneak attack by the gutless coward who sucker punched him in the back of the neck is beyond asinine.

It is amazing to me how many photographers are perfectly willing to throw their fellow photographers under the bus simply because some take the position that seeing how street photography is a lawful pursuit and we have a right to make street photographs that is guaranteed by the U.S. Bill of Rights - and has been confirmed as such by the U.S. Supreme Court - they deserve a beating.

WRONG.

This brings us back to the point that I have advocated previously - a point that appears to cause some people great umbrage and a point that many others refuse to acknowledge: Complaining at a street photographer is lawful. Attacking a street photographer is unlawful.

I will readily agree that the photographer did make a serious tactical error in turning his back on his assailants. NEVER turn your back on a potential attacker who is livid and yelling, street photography or not. Remain facing them and retreat by back stepping without crossing your feet over each other...

 

[KM-25]

I will readily agree that the photographer did make a serious tactical error in turning his back on his assailants. NEVER turn your back on a potential attacker who is livid and yelling, street photography or not. Remain facing them and retreat by back stepping without crossing your feet over each other...

Bingo! We have a winner!!

Bottom line is that the punks were at fault and the guy with the camera learned a lesson in that he could have done better at de-escalating the verbal part of the confrontation and using at least basic street smarts in not turning his back to the perps once they kept at it, leaving him exposed to the physical violence he experienced.

When I say learn a lesson, it is not so much from the standpoint that he deserved it or had it coming as it is that he had a pretty strong role in how this all went down.

You are defensive & accusatory towards those on this thread who do not agree with you, calling "fellow photographers" asinine for pushing the rights part of all this behind the now much needed practice of Modern Common Courtesy, Common Sense and Empathy.

If a photographer or photo enthusiast does not actively practice the aforementioned tenets in their engagement of the public with their camera in 2016, the digital and social media age, then they are not what I would consider "Fellow Photographers."

I happen to find it refreshing & somewhat of a relief in that on a forum known for street photography enthusiasts, the tack of fist pounding about rights is taking a back seat to common sense and humility.

I'd say you had better get used to it, this is the direction is it headed and it is long overdue.

 

[Keith]

So much anger end resentment in this world over issues that really pale into insignificance when compared to things that really matter ... that will effect all of humanity ultimately! 🙁