Subway Death Causes Controversy
[link] [link] [link]
A couple of days ago, a man was hit and killed by a subway train in New York City after a man pushed him onto the tracks. A freelance photographer on the scene at the time decided to take photographs of this instead of making an attempt to help the man. He sold the photos to the New York Post, and they ran one of the photos with the caption: "Pushed on the subway track, this man is about to die: DOOMED."
Do you think the photographer, and the New York Post, reacted to this situation in a moral way? What should be done?
A couple of days ago, a man was hit and killed by a subway train in New York City after a man pushed him onto the tracks. A freelance photographer on the scene at the time decided to take photographs of this instead of making an attempt to help the man. He sold the photos to the New York Post, and they ran one of the photos with the caption: "Pushed on the subway track, this man is about to die: DOOMED."
Do you think the photographer, and the New York Post, reacted to this situation in a moral way? What should be done?
Comments175
Join the community to add your comment. Already a deviant? Log In
the photographer acted in the way that would make him the most money
This was a tough one.
At one hand, a part of me was screaming, "WHY ARE YOU STANDING THERE!? HELP HIM UP! HIS HAND IS RIGHT THERE!" I was disgusted and outraged not a single person, the photographer or anyone there was helping him back on the tracks. The whole thing could have been prevented had people been good Samaritans and helped him right back on the platform.
... on the OTHER hand, I was never put in a situation where someone was pushed onto a train with a train coming on the tracks. It is something you don't see every day. You go into a sense of shock and not believing what your seeing. These things happen.
But... the one taking the photograph and then had it on the doom picture? That isn't a man in shock and he could have put the camera down and helped. Pictures like that with such a caption is the kind you see on 4chan or other dark humor websites. The New York Post? Not exactly where I'd see it.
Shame on you, is what I say to them.
At one hand, a part of me was screaming, "WHY ARE YOU STANDING THERE!? HELP HIM UP! HIS HAND IS RIGHT THERE!" I was disgusted and outraged not a single person, the photographer or anyone there was helping him back on the tracks. The whole thing could have been prevented had people been good Samaritans and helped him right back on the platform.
... on the OTHER hand, I was never put in a situation where someone was pushed onto a train with a train coming on the tracks. It is something you don't see every day. You go into a sense of shock and not believing what your seeing. These things happen.
But... the one taking the photograph and then had it on the doom picture? That isn't a man in shock and he could have put the camera down and helped. Pictures like that with such a caption is the kind you see on 4chan or other dark humor websites. The New York Post? Not exactly where I'd see it.
Shame on you, is what I say to them.
One does wonder about the absences of fences or walls or anything to keep people from falling in. I know they've got them in Beijing, but I suppose it's possible there are other problems associated with stationary doors.
Mysterious.
Mysterious.
Fun fact: I accidentally lit myself on fire in 2006, and my first thought was "I should take a picture of this, it would be hilarious." As my sleeve was on fire.
My point is, not everyone handles surprises well and their instincts in an emergency are not always ideal.
My point is, not everyone handles surprises well and their instincts in an emergency are not always ideal.
Oh wow. This thread reminds me of why having hope in humanity is stupid.
Legality and morality are two different things, he's not obligated to do anything. It may well be immoral to not try and save the guy but sometimes morality is stupid.
why hasnt' the asshole who did the pushing been charged with a hate crime?
You have a train some 50-30 feet away... Can you reasonably reach down three feet, pull a hundred and sixty pound man who is panicked up from that?
You have seconds to act.
Answer is most of us do not have the cartoon character strength to reach down and lift that kind of panicked weight.
Instead both you and the trapped man will die.
So the photographer tried in vain to warn the train operator with the flash on the camera. It is very likely the operator never saw the flash as it wouldn't overpower the stations lights to begin with.
You have seconds to act.
Answer is most of us do not have the cartoon character strength to reach down and lift that kind of panicked weight.
Instead both you and the trapped man will die.
So the photographer tried in vain to warn the train operator with the flash on the camera. It is very likely the operator never saw the flash as it wouldn't overpower the stations lights to begin with.
BULLSHIT. The photographer was not warning anybody, he SOLD THE PICTURES he was taking. If he was warning the train he would have been yelling not taking pictures. And his pictures would not have turned out well enough to be published if he was warning the train with it.
A 160 pound man is nothing. Haven't you sstood in a subway tunnel? The train being that far away is plenty of time that I could pull a man up high enoughto get him out of harm. It would only take a second or two, it's not that hard. Pulling a person out of harms way should NEVER be explained to be too hard. You insult the hundreds of people who perform these acts in the face of great danger. To rescue a person we haven't met is one of the things that makes human. To stand and decide we don't have the time or strength is dispicable. And you just easily accepting that lame explanation as valid is even worse.
A 160 pound man is nothing. Haven't you sstood in a subway tunnel? The train being that far away is plenty of time that I could pull a man up high enoughto get him out of harm. It would only take a second or two, it's not that hard. Pulling a person out of harms way should NEVER be explained to be too hard. You insult the hundreds of people who perform these acts in the face of great danger. To rescue a person we haven't met is one of the things that makes human. To stand and decide we don't have the time or strength is dispicable. And you just easily accepting that lame explanation as valid is even worse.
A person panicking is very dangerous. If he were cooperative and sound, that would be one thing, but when someone's panicking it's more likely that a would be rescuer would have ended up on the train tracks with him rather than saving him. Especially since gravity would have been on his side.
Why wouldn't the photos turn out well? A camera using a flash can have a shutter speed of 1/200 and still have crisp images.
you know nothing about professional cameras do you? His camera is not the dinky little 400 USD camera that you buy in Walmart. It has the ability to take photos to catch things in motion.
This means while running/moving its photos are clear.
So he can get photos like this whole moving, the flash alerting the train operator before the sound of his voice, ect.
Oh and light travels further and faster than sound. So anyone of intelligence can tell you that using the flash would be a far superior means of alerting the operator.
Now selling the photos? That's his job. They were a by product of trying to alert the operator.
This is no different than a photo journalist watching genicide in a African nation and not picking up a gun to stop it.
I highly doubt that you can lift 160 pounds of panicked weight in the few moments that were left to anyone close enough to that man.
This isn't the movies, and any person who's job it is to endanger themselves to rescue others will till you that there are many more who are dead because they tried to save others.
You are simply being a radical.
This means while running/moving its photos are clear.
So he can get photos like this whole moving, the flash alerting the train operator before the sound of his voice, ect.
Oh and light travels further and faster than sound. So anyone of intelligence can tell you that using the flash would be a far superior means of alerting the operator.
Now selling the photos? That's his job. They were a by product of trying to alert the operator.
This is no different than a photo journalist watching genicide in a African nation and not picking up a gun to stop it.
I highly doubt that you can lift 160 pounds of panicked weight in the few moments that were left to anyone close enough to that man.
This isn't the movies, and any person who's job it is to endanger themselves to rescue others will till you that there are many more who are dead because they tried to save others.
You are simply being a radical.
Obviously nothing has changed in our human nature since the times of the Colosseum slaughters or the public guillotine (spelling?) executions, seeing someone die still gives us a thrill. The more genuine, the better, and if we can argue that we were "200 feet away" or in front of a TV or computer and couldn't do anything about it, then that's good enough to take the blame off the fact that we actually got a boner seeing someone give their last breath.
Nothing beats someone's death in the level of thrill that it gives us, not drugs or sex or anything - we're all fans of horror films and don't think anything of it because it's all fake, but doesn't it make it so much better when they say it's "based on a true story"? When they make it as realistic as they can so you can just fantasize that you were actually there when it happened, watching those people die because that's the closest they can get to the real thing.
The people in the subway and the photographer weren't afraid of risking their own lives or thinking of showing everyone else how cruel the real world actually is, they just stood there watching because they wanted to see it happen, they wanted to see the train hit that poor soul and smash him to pieces because they may never get the opportunity to see this happen right in front of them again. And they don't have to feel guilty about it because each one of them can blame everyone else for not doing anything, the more people there are, the less responsibility each of them feel to take action, so they can all say what that photographer said - too far away, to weak to lift someone, too many bags to carry etc. - all excuses to mask what really stopped them which is just sadistic pleasure.
Nothing beats someone's death in the level of thrill that it gives us, not drugs or sex or anything - we're all fans of horror films and don't think anything of it because it's all fake, but doesn't it make it so much better when they say it's "based on a true story"? When they make it as realistic as they can so you can just fantasize that you were actually there when it happened, watching those people die because that's the closest they can get to the real thing.
The people in the subway and the photographer weren't afraid of risking their own lives or thinking of showing everyone else how cruel the real world actually is, they just stood there watching because they wanted to see it happen, they wanted to see the train hit that poor soul and smash him to pieces because they may never get the opportunity to see this happen right in front of them again. And they don't have to feel guilty about it because each one of them can blame everyone else for not doing anything, the more people there are, the less responsibility each of them feel to take action, so they can all say what that photographer said - too far away, to weak to lift someone, too many bags to carry etc. - all excuses to mask what really stopped them which is just sadistic pleasure.
Nothing beats someone's death in the level of thrill that it gives us, not drugs or sex or anything - we're all fans of horror films and don't think anything of it because it's all fake, but doesn't it make it so much better when they say it's "based on a true story"? When they make it as realistic as they can so you can just fantasize that you were actually there when it happened, watching those people die because that's the closest they can get to the real thing.
Not always. A lot of people who are into horror movies are into being scared, not seeing people die.
Can horror have death, torture, etc in it? Yes.But a horror movie also has intrigue, suspense and a lot of psychological stuff going on.
If I just wanted to see torture and death I'd go see a gore film (also known as 'torture porn'). Sadly, gore films are also erroneously called horror. It's rather easy to make a distinction though.
Saw, Hostel etc = Gore.
Rosemary's baby, A haunting in connecticut, The ward etc = Horror
(SPOILERS)
Out of those three examples I listed in horror, one person dies in Rosemary's baby. Well,technically people die in The ward, but they aren't actually people, but personalities. (the girl has multiple personalities)
Basically:
Horror = good plots scary, may or not have death.
Gore = very simple plots, have lots of people torture and killed. not scary, just gross.
Not always. A lot of people who are into horror movies are into being scared, not seeing people die.
Can horror have death, torture, etc in it? Yes.But a horror movie also has intrigue, suspense and a lot of psychological stuff going on.
If I just wanted to see torture and death I'd go see a gore film (also known as 'torture porn'). Sadly, gore films are also erroneously called horror. It's rather easy to make a distinction though.
Saw, Hostel etc = Gore.
Rosemary's baby, A haunting in connecticut, The ward etc = Horror
(SPOILERS)
Out of those three examples I listed in horror, one person dies in Rosemary's baby. Well,technically people die in The ward, but they aren't actually people, but personalities. (the girl has multiple personalities)
Basically:
Horror = good plots scary, may or not have death.
Gore = very simple plots, have lots of people torture and killed. not scary, just gross.
Why do we think ourselves so much better than we were 2000 years ago? I for one never thought this.
Then again I realize that we love war... So long as we aren't made to fight it. That is why we can be at war for 12 years and no one demand that it end now.
Then again I realize that we love war... So long as we aren't made to fight it. That is why we can be at war for 12 years and no one demand that it end now.
Let's see... fire the newspaper employee(s) who was/were directly responsible for buying the photos and approving/writing/running the story?... that sounds good.
And the photographer? How about slapping him with a charge of 'involuntary manslaughter due to neglegance' or whatever they charge someone with for failing to take action when someone is dying of alcohol poisoning, a drug overdose, or attempted suicide... I think that about covers it, yeah.
And the photographer? How about slapping him with a charge of 'involuntary manslaughter due to neglegance' or whatever they charge someone with for failing to take action when someone is dying of alcohol poisoning, a drug overdose, or attempted suicide... I think that about covers it, yeah.
Why would you charge the photographer with manslaughter? That's beyond pathetic.
Now you're going to mandate that people unwillingly put themselves in danger even if they're not qualified to positively affect the situation. That's terrible.
The photographer was not closer to the man than other people were (allegedly).
Why is it the photographer needs to be superman?
Why is it the photographer, who is a photographer, gets treated like a rescue professional?
Why is it the man on the tracks didn't think to run to the other side where there was ample space for him to stand safely?
Why is it a deranged person was allowed to panhandle on the platform?
Why is a newspaper being blamed for showing the ugly truth to the world?
Now you're going to mandate that people unwillingly put themselves in danger even if they're not qualified to positively affect the situation. That's terrible.
The photographer was not closer to the man than other people were (allegedly).
Why is it the photographer needs to be superman?
Why is it the photographer, who is a photographer, gets treated like a rescue professional?
Why is it the man on the tracks didn't think to run to the other side where there was ample space for him to stand safely?
Why is it a deranged person was allowed to panhandle on the platform?
Why is a newspaper being blamed for showing the ugly truth to the world?
The charge of manslaughter would not be issued against him because of his failure to help the man, but because he stood around taking pictures after witnessing a crime. Maybe it would have been better to put it along the lines of "aiding" rather than "involuntary" manslaughter... he should have been dialing 9-1-1 on his cell phone or trying to alert security, not snapping pictures of a guy about to die. Or how about photographing the guy who actually pushed the other onto the tracks? Give the police some additional angle on the criminal other than security cameras or whatever.
The point is, there are some things in this world that are not to be done. And photographing a person about to die a gruesome death is one of them!
The point is, there are some things in this world that are not to be done. And photographing a person about to die a gruesome death is one of them!
"The charge of manslaughter would not be issued against him because of his failure to help the man, but because he stood around taking pictures after witnessing a crime. "
That is NOT manslaughter.
That is NOT manslaughter.
Well then whatever someone is charged with when they fail to act when someone is trying to commit suicide.
There is no charge for photographing a person.
Try using that excuse in a court of law when you're charged with causing a death through failure to act. Half of the US's laywers would probably love to sue you for wrongful death!
View all replies
People do odd things when shocked. I've seen someone through up their hands and go 'I can deal with this!' and walk out, when a room was on fire.
When my friend removed the tip of her finger,in woodwork, she rather serenely called out 'Sir' (that's what we referred our male teachers) 'When you have a spare minute, I think you should come over here.' I looked up, my mouth dropped open and called out and said that there has been an emergency.
Fuck, when a car slammed through my house, the only thing my mother wanted to do was to make a cup of tea. The firefighters had to tell her very firmly 'No, You can not make a cup of tea, your house might collapse.
Are you going to punish people for having deer-in-headlights reactions?
When my friend removed the tip of her finger,in woodwork, she rather serenely called out 'Sir' (that's what we referred our male teachers) 'When you have a spare minute, I think you should come over here.' I looked up, my mouth dropped open and called out and said that there has been an emergency.
Fuck, when a car slammed through my house, the only thing my mother wanted to do was to make a cup of tea. The firefighters had to tell her very firmly 'No, You can not make a cup of tea, your house might collapse.
Are you going to punish people for having deer-in-headlights reactions?
Deer-in-the-headlights reactions may explain taking the photos but definitely not selling them to the newspaper after. There are no legitimate excuses for what this photographer did.