Photo of man about to be killed by subway train

[Princess Dolly]

Originally Posted by npmommie

I didn't look at the story or the picture. too disturbing for me. but to post it here keeps it going. people who never would have saw it now have seen it.
quite disturbing if you ask me to post something like this on a family disney board.
sorry. but I got points once for a funny harmless comedy video link.
but disturbing pictures that really bother people are ok.

I feel very badly for that persons family as well as the driver that hit him.

You don't have to click on the link.

[Princess Dolly]

Great article with two people I admire weighing in, John Kaplan and John Freeman. Anyway, it gives you more insight into the minds of photojournalists. CAUTION LINK CONTAINS THE PICTURE AS WELL.

http://gawker.com/5965659/would-you-...aphers-respond

[npmommie]

Originally Posted by Princess Dolly

You don't have to click on the link.

you are right, and I did not click the link.
but you are missing my point. there is a curiosity factor here with passing the picture further.

just stating the obvious. I think its just as bad to keep it going here as it is to publish it in the first place.
of course this is jmo

[luvmy3]

Originally Posted by crazyme5kids

luvmy3, sorry, I have a little mind fog going on today. Just realized what you meant. Yeah, the Times questioning the publishing of the photo is hypocritical.

Nothing to be sorry about, I just hope any misunderstanding about my post is clear. That goes for you too Jennasis

Originally Posted by Jennasis

The photog also said there were people closer to the victim during the incident and many stayed behind after and took cell phone pics and video of the dead body.

I find that so much more disturbing than a photojournalist taking that picture. Why would anyone do that.

Originally Posted by donaldlovesdaisy

Oh my word how horrible for the man and for all those who had to witness this. I can't imagine why no one would help him.

I imagine they didn't want to put themselves in jeopardy. I can say that if my dh was there and went running over to help, I'd hold him back for fear he'd end up on the tracks too. Not something I'm proud of, but doesn't change it.

[FergieTCat]

Originally Posted by FireDancer

The reality and the mythology of the Genovese case are quite different. The initial reports of both the number of witnesses and that no one did anything have both been proven inaccurate.

Whether or not Kitty Genovese was a parable, there still remains "The Bystander Effect."

[kimblebee]

Originally Posted by Princess Dolly

Great article with two people I admire weighing in, John Kaplan and John Freeman. Anyway, it gives you more insight into the minds of photojournalists.

http://gawker.com/5965659/would-you-...aphers-respond

I think you need to edit your post to include a warning that the photo appears on this link as well. I opened the OP link so I had already seen it but others who want to avoid the picture may open your link and be upset. Just a thought.

[Princess Dolly]

Originally Posted by kimblebee

I think you need to edit your post to include a warning that the photo appears on this link as well. I opened the OP link so I had already seen it but others who want to avoid the picture may open your link and be upset. Just a thought.

Thanks. Honestly, I didn't even notice the picture because I scrolled right to the words. Here is the article copied:

Would You Have Taken the Post Subway Photo?: Pulitzer-Winning Photographers Respond


Cord Jefferson



Yesterday, a freelance photographer working for the New York Post, R. Umar Abbasi, inadvertently stumbled onto the killing of Ki Suk Han, a man who was run over by a New York subway train after being shoved onto the tracks by an unidentified assailant.

Abbasi says he took out his camera and snapped pictures of Han's final moments in an effort to alert the coming train's driver with his flash that something was wrong. Alas, the driver couldn't stop in time, and Han was crushed. He was later rushed to St. Luke's Hospital, where he was pronounced dead.

Though Abbasi claims his photos were incidental, the Post still ran one of them on its cover today under the headline "DOOMED." We asked several professional journalists, including two Pulitzer winning photographers, what they think of the controversial images.

Vincent Laforet, director and Pulitzer Prize winner for feature photography:


Given that I wasn't there I have to take Mr. Abbasi's account of events at face value. If he felt he could not physically make it to the man trapped on the tracks in timefiring his flash to get the operator's attention may have been his only recourse.

Photojournalists have to think ahead of what decision they would make, or often are thrown into such situations, as an inevitable part of their jobs. Most decide that they are human beings first and will do anything they can to save another at the expense of making a photograph. Things become very difficult when you know that you either a. don't have the proper training or equipment to help/rescue another person b. the necessary time c. That you will likely become a second victim that needs to be rescued or worse.

At times the wisest thing to do is to call 911 and wait for the properly trained and equipped professionals to effect the rescue. In a situation like this which develops in the blink of an eyeit would appear that Mr. Abbasi did the only thing he coulduse his flash to get the operator's attention. Without seeing a full shooting sequence or a video I cannot come to any other determination.

It's very important for the public to remember that journalists play an important role and that they can often perform an important public service. When I covered hurricane Katrina for the New York Times, my instinct was to rescue as many people as I could and drive them out of New Orleans. I realized that I didn't have enough food, fuel or water to do thisand that I had no place to bring them nor any way to care for those with medical conditions.

Eventually I realized that the images that I was making of these people were ending up on the front page of The New York Times and that the public at large as well as people in Washington were being informed of just how bad the situation was in New Orleans. Our coverage of the terrible conditions at Louis Armstrong Airport led to a noticeable increase in medical and support personnel the very next day. It's important to remember that it was days before the world truly understood the scale of the devastation with Katrinaand that they learned about it through news reports, photographs, and video footagemost of which were very difficult to gather and took a serious emotional toll on those that gathered them. Therefore while photographing any disturbing event might be counter to ones human instinctit can be a necessary act that could potentially prevent it from happening to others in the future.

In this particular case it appears that little could have been done to save this man in time. I know that if anyone did have a reasonable chance to save this man they will likely never recover from their failure to do so.

Ross Taylor, staff photographer with The Virginian-Pilot:


The question you asked, "Do I think what the photographer did was right?" is difficult to answer. I've thought about it a lot today, and I think the answer is one with nuance. I know many people are upset at the photographer for not helping out, and I can understand that point of view. However, without knowing the full extent of the situation, or without being there in person, it's hard to judge the photographer's actions with the respect this situation deserves. "Could the photographer have even been able to help?" is a question worth examining. I don't know we can honestly know this either way.

In addition, who knows how any of us would react in a moment like this? It's not as if these situations arise with preparation in mind. I'm not defending the photographer, but I'm also not against what he did. In the end, it's just hard to know without being there.

I do feel this though: I would not have run the image as the Post did on the front cover. If it was a major news event, one that warranted a need for such a display, that would be one thing. In my opinion, this was not a major news event, and I don't think that was the right call.

John Kaplan, professor of photojournalism at the University of Florida and Pulitzer Prize winner for feature photography:

In truth, nobody can say whether the photographer could have safely rescued the victim. If so, we hope he would have done the right thing and rushed toward him first, rather than toward his camera. My belief is that we have to give the photographer the benefit of the doubt. It's almost important to ask whether other bystanders could have safely helped, too?

The blame in this controversy lies directly with the New York Post for publishing such a callous, crude and truly tasteless headline while at the same time wrongly splashing the tragedy on the front page.

Roy S. Gutterman, associate professor of communications law and director of the Tully Center for Free Speech at Syracuse University:

Photographers, especially those in dramatic situations like developing stories, disasters or war zones, face the question of whether they are photographers and journalists first or human beings first. These are scenarios most often left for ethics textbooks, though. Once a reporter or photographer lends a hand to someone, that journalist ceases being a journalist and becomes part of the story. There's no way to maintain the independence as a journalist and participate in a news event at the same time. You cannot tell the story and be part of it. It's a tough line not to cross. Many people outside press circles do not always understand this.

I'm not sure the photographer in this case could have taken the dramatic picture and saved the guy at the same time, both practically and ethically.

John Freeman, associate professor of journalism at the University of Florida:

In my classes, I always teach that photographers should help first and take pictures second. In the contest of "a photo vs. a life," the life should always win. But what if the Post photographer couldn't help the man on the tracks? What if the train was coming too fast, or the victim was too heavy? What if by helping, the photographer put himself in grave danger? I can't fault the photographer entirely. This could have started and ended in what, 10 seconds? Maybe by instinct the photographer reacted and shot flash photos? Where were the other bystanders? Why aren't they helping?

Bethany Swain, lecturer at the University of Maryland and member of the National Press Photographers Association board of directors:

I am a human first, and a photographer second. The journalistic value of these images were not worth this man's life. But, there is more to the photographs than it would appear at first glance.

It is easy to question the situation outside the heat and adrenaline of the moment, but I think the photographer did what many of us would have done: draw attention and hope the train would stop and avoid the collision. According to the New York Post article, he wasn't composing images, but trying to use the tools to prevent a tragedy.

Unfortunately, this turned into a senseless tragedy. Stop blaming the photographer and direct the anger and energy into developing a system to better deal with mental illness. From the details in the New York Post article, it is the disturbed gentleman who pushed Ki Suk Han who is to blame in his death, not the photographer who couldn't stop the collision.

We talk about these types of situations from the beginning of the journalism training at University of Maryland's Merrill College of Journalism, often in the context of war reporting. As journalists it is important to think about these types of situations before they happen because there isn't time in the moment to do much besides just react.

Mark E. Johnson, senior lecturer of photojournalism at the University of Georgia:

I don't know the photographer and I wasn't there, so I'm willing to take his word that he was using the camera flash to try and warn the train's driver. That, to me, would make the creation of the image incidental in some ways.

The issue for me is not whether he made the photographs or notit was reported the photographer was not physically strong enough to lift the man out of the way. He did, it would appear, shoot the man on the tracks prior to the train coming. (That image is in the NY Post video.)

The issue is really whether the images should have been run. I teach my students to, in most circumstances, shoot what they see, regardless of what is happening around them, unless they are the only ones who can help in an emergency situation. By shooting, that allows a measured, journalistic decision to be made about whether to run the image. In the moment, you don't know what the story is going to be. Only after fully reporting do you make a decision to publish or not.

In this situation, you have one manic, tragic act and a very graphic image of it. Is it newsworthy? The story is, but as an isolated incident does the public need to see something this graphic? I don't think so. If this were an ongoing issue that the public needed to be made aware of, then maybe you run itthe shock value of it could, perhaps, raise enough awareness to affect change.

The question of whether you shoot or not is a bit of a red herring herein a fluid situation like this, making that call is incredibly difficult. Did the photographer do what he thought was best, help in the way he first thought he could? I think so. The video shows a lot of other people in that area, did any of them help? Could they have? Only those there would know, and only for themselveseveryone is going to react to that situation differently. Some will be passive, some will shout, some will jump down there to try and help.

But after the moment, in the din of a newsroom, when you can talk through the situation, when you understand the larger story as it has now been reported? I don't know how you make the decision to run that photo.

Stan Alost, associate professor of photojournalism at Ohio University:

The decision to photograph or help is always controversial. Journalists are trained to observe and to not inject themselves into situations. The idea is that the power of the reporting/image can help society, if not the individual. As evidence, there are a number of historical images that helped change public opinion (laws) that would not exist had the photographer intervened (look at Lewis Hine, Eddie Adams, Charles Moore). Society is quick to condemn the photographer in the moment. Yet, sometimes, the image changes the world for others.

On the other hand, as a staff photojournalist I have been in situations where I felt compelled to act. I put down my cameras to assist because I felt at the moment that I was the only person in position to help and that was more important than the image I might make. It is a moral struggle that few have to make. As an editor, I have had staff who did they same, rushing to aid car wreck victims until help arrived and then shooting pictures.

There are times when as a photojournalist you know what is going to unfolda mob beating an informant/looter; police confronting a gunman; someone intent on suicide; warand the only action you can take is to make photographs to help your audience understand. As a witness to such horrors, it hurts. Other than that, there are repeated examples of photojournalist choosing to help rather than photograph.

I must assume that the photographer believed that taking the photo would alert the train driver enough to stop. I doubt any working photojournalist would knowingly choose to photograph a scene anticipating death or injury of a subject unless they felt that there was nothing they could do to help.

I understand the public outcry. I can only imagine the photographer's angst. There are no winners. There is a poor man who lost his life, a train diver that killed a person, and a photographer who witnessed it all.

[mnrose]

I heard the photographer interviewed this morning on the Today show, and I do not fault him for taking the photo. Photojournalists operate on instinct...and thank goodness they do! As someone else said, photos tell stories that words cannot. And, some important stories they are. I think of some of the photographs coming out of the Vietnam war. It was the horrifying photos that brought attention to the war, and helped it end.

The photographer in this particular photo says he was way too far away to do any good at rescuing the man. I believe him. It all happened in mere seconds. Others were closer and still could do nothing to save him.

I do not think that publishing the photo was in good taste. But, that is not the photographer's fault.

[Geoff_M]

Originally Posted by Princess Dolly

Great article with two people I admire weighing in, John Kaplan and John Freeman. Anyway, it gives you more insight into the minds of photojournalists.

Ditto with Vincent Laforet... I love his work, particularly his aerial stuff.

That's a pretty good commentary round-up from a lot of people that have "been there", so to speak... but I will say that some, but not all, of the opinions were obviously garnered without the knowledge that the photo in question was only a byproduct of Abbasi's repeated "blind firing" of the camera at arm's length in an effort to alert the train operator instead of trying to capture a horrific accident.

[MakiraMarlena]

I guess I have the advantage of hindsight but I don't see how setting off the flash in the train driver's face would have helped to alert him that there was a man on the tracks. Even then, those trains are not capable of stopping quickly.

When things happen that fast, sometimes you're not thinking very clearly though. Maybe it was all he could think of to do.

I can't fault him for the photo, it's the front page full color garish headline placement it was given by the NY post.

[cornflake]

Originally Posted by FireDancer

Yes, it is extremely hypocritical. I always get a laugh when the news feigns offense or disgust at something someone else does while doing the exact same thing in reporting the incident.

If the Post publishing the photo was wrong, which I don't necessarily agree with, the Times publishing the photo in reference to the Post's publication is equally wrong since it is the exact same thing. Anyone who publishes the picture, whether in the paper, on the television, or on the web, while chastising the Post for publishing it are hypocrites. Anyone who is upset at the Post but isn't equally upset at every other publication, website, and news station showing the picture while commenting on it is equally a hypocrite.

I think there's a huge difference between publishing something for exploitive effect and publishing it for the purposes of an actual discussion.

Would there be any difference between the napalm girl photo the way it was run and if someone ran it with a creepy headline about her nudity in some lurid magazine?

Don't have a problem with the photographer, he wasn't close; he had no other recourse - and I don't have a problem even if he was doing it partly for documentation's sake.

The Post, however... at the very least that's not the way to use it.

[FireDancer]

Originally Posted by cornflake

I think there's a huge difference between publishing something for exploitive effect and publishing it for the purposes of an actual discussion.

That is the justification they use but no, it is just an excuse to post the picture and still have a lie to tell themselves and make them feel better about doing exactly what they are trying to criticize.

[Deb in IA]

Suspected NYC Subway Pusher Charged With Murder

New York City Subway Pusher Charged With
+By RICHARD ESPOSITO and COLLEEN CURRY
Dec. 5, 2012
A New York City man was charged today with murder for shoving another man onto subway tracks where he was struck and killed by an oncoming train.

Naeem Davis, 30, was charged after being questioned by police since Tuesday about the death of Ki-Suck Han, 58, of Queens, N.Y.

The charges include murder second degree: intentional, as well as murder second degree: depraved indifference.

He is charged with murdering Han "with depraved indifference" not because he intended to kill Han, but because his lack of regard for Han's life resulted in the death. Two sources involved in Davis' arrest and charging say there is a question whether he intended to kill Han or whether his death was an unintended consequence of an altercation.

Davis admitted to police while explaining the incident that he shoved Han in a way that caused him to fall onto the subway tracks, according to multiple sources involved with the investigation.

Han struggled to pull himself up from the shoulder-high track bed and back onto the platform at the 49th Street and Seventh Avenue station around 12:30 p.m. on Monday, but was hit and killed by a Q train when it barrelled into the station.

Davis could be heard arguing with Han before the fatal shove, according to surveillance video from the station. Davis told police that Han was harassing him and would not leave him alone, so he pushed Han.

Detectives are investigating whether the altercation began at the subway station turnstile and whether Han had jumped that turnstile and bumped Davis.

Police are also awaiting toxicology results on Han, who was found with an empty pint bottle of vodka on him when he died, according to sources.

Davis has no currently known mental illness history. He has prior arrests for minor charges, although the search of his arrest record is not complete. Those arrests in New York City appear to be peddler related.

He is expected to be arraigned this evening in New York.

Han death shocked New York City and the moment was frozen in the city's psyche by a photograph that captured Han with his arms and head above the platform staring at the oncoming train.

A doctor who was standing nearby attempted to perform CPR on Han, but he was pronounced dead at Roosevelt Hospital shortly after the accident.

I agree with the professionals who said that without actually being there, it is hard, probably impossible, to say if the photographer could have saved the man.

However, if the photographer was only using the flash to try to warn the engineer of the oncoming train, then why were the images published? And with such a disgusting headline?

Obviously, the Post was using sensationalism to make $$$, at the expense of the victim of this tragedy.

And that is the real outrage of this entire story.

[cornflake]

Originally Posted by FireDancer

That is the justification they use but no, it is just an excuse to post the picture and still have a lie to tell themselves and make them feel better about doing exactly what they are trying to criticize.

I disagree. Would you say the same about the napalm girl photo? Things aren't just one thing. The Times could surely have used the photo to illustrate the original story, had they so chosen.

They're using it to illustrate a discussion - hard to discuss without the photo in question.