The reason they don't carry firearms in a war zone is that they are suppose to be neutral journalist. They are their to document, not to fight like adamz mentioned. Unless you are a combat photographer, meaning you are a soldier first photographer second, then you can not carry a weapon.

Now that's not to say you can't pick up a gun to protect yourself if the sh!t hits the fan. You just can't carry one with you and unless you have firearms training you should just stick to shooting with a camera.

First off, sorry for answering so late! I had 2 midterms yesterday, and 1 last week. Threw me completely off schedule.

NikoDoby said:
That's because we are lovers not killers :^)

Well unless you try to steal our camera gear. Then it's another quick firearms drill!

What about self defense? :D

adamz said:
firstly thanks for the findings NSX, it's always a tough decision what to do. we had a pretty similar situation like this in warsaw recently, when a cop was stabbed at the bus stop by teenager - and ppl where watching only, the cop was off duty. I don't know waht I would do in a situation like this - probably evaluate chances, and if possible I would take the action, but it's so hard to say unless You are in situation.

TJ - You mentioned africa, there are a lot of options to help them over there, and trust me the last thing they need is if You take Your butt there and start taking snaps. sorry if I sound too rude, but I've been in slums of Nairobi, I've seen ppl living on streets all over India, and homeless kids in different parts of the world. and trust me I've seen a lot of white dumbasses that couldn't take there fingers from their cameras, instead of trying to do sth, at least trying to communicate with them - sometimes even a small candy can bring so many positive emotions, that apart from other thing Your pictures will benefit too. I'm not saying that You are one of them, as I don't know You. I also don't say that I have sth against taking snaps in remote areas. I only wanna say, that think twice before taking the snap, ask for permission, communicate - now back on topic.

as for taking war pictures, never tried that, and hopefully will never be forced to try - but I will do as poster wrote, leave the fight to soldiers, and do my job - document.

Yup, not a problem.

warprints said:
Is it weird and unexpected that photographers don't carry sidearms, or was the attack described in the story weird and unexpected?
"We are shaped and molded by our past experiences, which often create behaviors that are not to be overcome." I sometime do CC (I am licensed).

Weird in that you would expect a photographer in a war zone to carry a side arm for protection, but they really don't. I certainly would. :D

Pepper spray is considered a weapon so it can get you into some big trouble depending on how much you have and what type. It's safer and easier to just wear a helmet.

Paparazzi often carry pepper spray due to crazy fans...

NSXType-R said:
And it's interesting to note that photographers don't carry sidearms. That's weird and unexpected.

Is it weird and unexpected that photographers don't carry sidearms, or was the attack described in the story weird and unexpected?
"We are shaped and molded by our past experiences, which often create behaviors that are not to be overcome." I sometime do CC (I am licensed).

firstly thanks for the findings NSX, it's always a tough decision what to do. we had a pretty similar situation like this in warsaw recently, when a cop was stabbed at the bus stop by teenager - and ppl where watching only, the cop was off duty. I don't know waht I would do in a situation like this - probably evaluate chances, and if possible I would take the action, but it's so hard to say unless You are in situation.

TJ - You mentioned africa, there are a lot of options to help them over there, and trust me the last thing they need is if You take Your butt there and start taking snaps. sorry if I sound too rude, but I've been in slums of Nairobi, I've seen ppl living on streets all over India, and homeless kids in different parts of the world. and trust me I've seen a lot of white dumbasses that couldn't take there fingers from their cameras, instead of trying to do sth, at least trying to communicate with them - sometimes even a small candy can bring so many positive emotions, that apart from other thing Your pictures will benefit too. I'm not saying that You are one of them, as I don't know You. I also don't say that I have sth against taking snaps in remote areas. I only wanna say, that think twice before taking the snap, ask for permission, communicate - now back on topic.

as for taking war pictures, never tried that, and hopefully will never be forced to try - but I will do as poster wrote, leave the fight to soldiers, and do my job - document.

NSXType-R said:
And it's interesting to note that photographers don't carry sidearms. That's weird and unexpected.

That's because we are lovers not killers :^)

Well unless you try to steal our camera gear. Then it's another quick firearms drill!

NikoDoby said:
Photojournalist in war zones don't carry firearms! They are there to document the war, not to become the story. Unfortunately that usually means they are easy targets and often become the story.
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2010/02/four-photographers-among-record-number-of-journalists-killed-in-2009.html

As for the subway murder, what could this girl have done differently? I don't think she did anything wrong IN THIS situation. She was scared and taking pictures is what she instinctively did to take "control" of the situation. If she had been sitting next to the guy getting stabbed (she wasn't) what could she have done?

Unless you have martial arts/combat training you would have gotten stabbed too if you had tried to get between a guy stabbing someone else. Now if you hurry over and start taking in-your-face photos of a dying man while nobody lifted a finger to attempt first aid then that would have been wrong.

This is exactly why ethics are a big part of photojournalism. It's not as easy as you "youngsters" think. You will come across some very hard scenes and make choices that you will have to live with long after the shutter clicks.

I wasn't criticizing the girl in the subway, I used the article because the article I ran across made me think of it. I wouldn't be able to live with myself if I didn't do anything to help and instead decided to go for that great shot of perhaps a person bleeding to death.

And yes, like many posters said, I would need to assess the situation first. And it's interesting to note that photographers don't carry sidearms. That's weird and unexpected.

You know it is legal in Texas, with the proper training and permit, to carry a concealed weapon for these kind of situations. If it were me I'd get everyone else behind me and then I'd give a real quick lesson on the Mozambique Drill.

Double click to watch this clip as embedding is disabled and it won't play here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQKr2AkKDU

What do you do if in addition to your camera, you are packing your beloved 45APC H&K, Niko?

Sometimes the best thing to do is to be the first to document a crime scene or "suspect" before they leave the area. In this case the passengers were stuck with the killer and they could have easily been attacked too.

Especially if he had noticed the girl taking pictures of him. What's to say he wouldn't have attacked her to take the camera away?

As I understand the article, the had already been stabbed and the attacker was putting his knife away when the photo students noticed something going on. It was too late to intervene to stop the attack, which was over. If the photographer had no medical training, or panicsw in tense situations, she was of no use in the situation, other than to document it.

To intervene or not, for me, in a situation that I witness unfolding, would depend on the circumstances. Under the proper circumstances, I would intervene. Photography would come as a second priority.

Photojournalist in war zones don't carry firearms! They are there to document the war, not to become the story. Unfortunately that usually means they are easy targets and often become the story.
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2010/02/four-photographers-among-record-number-of-journalists-killed-in-2009.html

As for the subway murder, what could this girl have done differently? I don't think she did anything wrong IN THIS situation. She was scared and taking pictures is what she instinctively did to take "control" of the situation. If she had been sitting next to the guy getting stabbed (she wasn't) what could she have done?

Unless you have martial arts/combat training you would have gotten stabbed too if you had tried to get between a guy stabbing someone else. Now if you hurry over and start taking in-your-face photos of a dying man while nobody lifted a finger to attempt first aid then that would have been wrong.

This is exactly why ethics are a big part of photojournalism. It's not as easy as you "youngsters" think. You will come across some very hard scenes and make choices that you will have to live with long after the shutter clicks.

That's a crazy story! I've always wondered how I'd react in a situation like that. I think I'd follow Poster's example and try and help the person. That seems to be the most correct way to act, anyway. Photography can always wait when someone's life is at stake.

Now, it's a little bit harder to help when you're, say, documenting starvation in Africa. In that case, the only way you really can help is by taking pictures, showing the world who's in need.

I'm not sure I would just idly stand by taking pictures when someone's getting stabbed. That's just wrong. Granted, the photographer probably wasn't in the position or had time to help, but in a different case, I would've taken more affirmative action.

NSXType-R said:
I'm surprised there hasn't been more replies. But you guys made great ones, so I'll comment on that.

No doubt helping out could be an issue, especially if you're inexperienced, which is why I said, take every case individually.

It indeed is a touchy subject, but I'm sure others have come across it in the past.

I don't know, if I were a soldier and I had to escort a war correspondent, I'd be really annoyed that I have to protect my own rear end along with someone without a gun. Which is why I'd probably get at least minimum training with a gun and learn how to handle it as well, if I were a correspondent.

I am sure war correspondents are briefed on the procedures and what to do in case of an ambush. The priority of the soldier will be to eliminate the target first. I am not sure that they would be allowed to take a gun with them. ( I don't know, maybe they are)

You don't want to be in a situation where you have a person with no training how to act in high stress/adrenaline situations like this wielding a gun with only limited experience or skill. That only increases the risk.

I'm surprised there hasn't been more replies. But you guys made great ones, so I'll comment on that.

kyoshinikon said:
This is probably one of the touchiest subjects in the industry... While I don't think it is right to just sit there with a camera, what could the photographer do to help? The lives of the ones being effected are much more important than photographs and as such a photographer should do what he/she can before settling to just taking shots. On the same note the photographer trying to help can also make the situation worse and can injure themselves and the onlookers. At the same time the photographer should never let an opportunity pass up which is why the camera they use should fit perfectly in their hand and way of thinking. The D700 as a body part (second eye, perfect fit, control without having to look) can be much more effective than the swinging box on your neck that you have to thumb around with for every shot. This subject is most prominent in photojournalism where shots are supposed to help in the long run...

No doubt helping out could be an issue, especially if you're inexperienced, which is why I said, take every case individually.

It indeed is a touchy subject, but I'm sure others have come across it in the past.

poster said:
Have you seen the Midnight Meat Train?

There's a scene pretty much like this. Somebody look it up on youtube.

Personally if I had the opportunity to take the guy out by whatever means possible I would do it within a heartbeat. The guy is stabbing a helpless person. WTF? Am I am just going to stand there like I don't give a shit? Hell no! The moment he let's his guard down, it would be the moment I would use to take him down.

"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

-Eli Wiesel

On the subject of being a war correspondent I really don't know. My first instinct would be self-preservation. I would always carry a gun and know who to use it. But if I am in the situation like you described, where we are being ambushed, I would leave the fighting to the soldiers. I would only be an additional risk to them. The are trained to fight in scenarios like these. They fight like a unit, and I am just a guy with a camera. Me going and starting shooting would not help that much. Do what you do best. Leave the shooting and fighting to those who were trained and experienced in it.

I don't know, if I were a soldier and I had to escort a war correspondent, I'd be really annoyed that I have to protect my own rear end along with someone without a gun. Which is why I'd probably get at least minimum training with a gun and learn how to handle it as well, if I were a correspondent.

Have you seen the Midnight Meat Train?

There's a scene pretty much like this. Somebody look it up on youtube.

Personally if I had the opportunity to take the guy out by whatever means possible I would do it within a heartbeat. The guy is stabbing a helpless person. WTF? Am I am just going to stand there like I don't give a shit? Hell no! The moment he let's his guard down, it would be the moment I would use to take him down.

"We must always take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor, never the victim. Silence encourages the tormentor, never the tormented."

-Eli Wiesel

On the subject of being a war correspondent I really don't know. My first instinct would be self-preservation. I would always carry a gun and know who to use it. But if I am in the situation like you described, where we are being ambushed, I would leave the fighting to the soldiers. I would only be an additional risk to them. The are trained to fight in scenarios like these. They fight like a unit, and I am just a guy with a camera. Me going and starting shooting would not help that much. Do what you do best. Leave the shooting and fighting to those who were trained and experienced in it.

This is probably one of the touchiest subjects in the industry... While I don't think it is right to just sit there with a camera, what could the photographer do to help? The lives of the ones being effected are much more important than photographs and as such a photographer should do what he/she can before settling to just taking shots. On the same note the photographer trying to help can also make the situation worse and can injure themselves and the onlookers. At the same time the photographer should never let an opportunity pass up which is why the camera they use should fit perfectly in their hand and way of thinking. The D700 as a body part (second eye, perfect fit, control without having to look) can be much more effective than the swinging box on your neck that you have to thumb around with for every shot. This subject is most prominent in photojournalism where shots are supposed to help in the long run...

I came across an article in the NY Times the other day where a photography student was photographing a stabbing in the subway.

As a photographer, should you even be photographing? Should you help out? Should you be doing something more productive?

Here's the article.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/27/nyregion/27deathcar.html?_r=2&scp=1&sq=Paola%20Nu%C3%B1ez%20Solorio&st=cse

Discuss.

I mean, I guess you could extend it to war and accident photography too. In an accident, perhaps I'd be of no use because I don't know any basic medical skills, but I'd also be calling 911 first before taking any shots anyway. It'd also be different if photography could help in the situation. For instance, if there was a hit and run, I'd be taking photos of the guy's license plate. So it depends on the situation. But if you're with a platoon of soldiers, and we come under fire, I know I'd be dropping my camera for a gun.

Chase Jarvis also posted about it in his blog as well.

http://blog.chasejarvis.com/blog/2010/02/to-shoot-or-not-to-shoot.html