FrankieB said:
There are some good points made in this thread. I would like to add that dressing for the neighborhood can be helpful. Nothing stands out more than a person over-dressed in a poor neighborhood. I also remove any labels from my camera bags that say Nikon, Canon, etc. I try to blend in with my surroundings, and that can be hard to do with camera equipment, especially with a tri-pod. I try and have everything ready and pre-planned for a quick "drive-by shooting."

Yes, I actually use gaffer's tape on my cameras and lenses, so they look generic. And, on the D4 thread, I said I would send a photo of my D4 with its "disguise" Also, blacking out the bright yellow NIKON on the camera strap, or a different strap is helpful. I always dress in rather casual clothing and unless someone comes up close, I am fairly large so they may think I am a guy from the rear. Shoes, good running shoes, not new, but dirty ones which are comfortable and give excellent footing, these are helpful. And when walking around, what is called "splatter vision" by a photographer friend, is the method whereby one can see the ground well, note action in the periphery, and notice good shooting opportunities. It has to do with awareness of ones surroundings.

There are some good points made in this thread. I would like to add that dressing for the neighborhood can be helpful. Nothing stands out more than a person over-dressed in a poor neighborhood. I also remove any labels from my camera bags that say Nikon, Canon, etc. I try to blend in with my surroundings, and that can be hard to do with camera equipment, especially with a tri-pod. I try and have everything ready and pre-planned for a quick "drive-by shooting."

Sure enough... and in the 1960's I was held out over the edge of a five story building by a rope around my waist, shooting straight down. First with the Nikon F and then with a Hasselblad, w/38mm, I think. Camera strap was attached to the tripod mount and around my wrist. And I was over the edge from about mid thigh up.

We sure do some strange things.... or a dye drum in a knitting plant, temp was 145°F and could not be cooled due to the process ongoing.. to fall and touch the drum about six feet in diameter.... HOT. Shot was from the inside out....

But, we are photographers. And we have made a decision to record the world the way we see it.

Yesterday I was out shooting in a park in San Pedro where I saw two photogenic young men. They were dressed in gangster Tshirts and sporting gang tattoos. I asked if I could take their picture. So for the next 10 minutes we did an informal shoot. I took about 40 shots, and maybe one will be a keeper. All along we chatted and I kept them up to date on what I was doing and why I was doing it by showing them the pictures on the back of the camera. We also talked about friendship (they told me they were best friends.)

I think the picture I will print is one of the last I took, where one of them has a sweet, friendly smile. It took a while to get there, because they wanted to pose with tough guy scary faces at first.

Maybe it's a dangerous practice to approach strangers in a park, but I think I got one good photograph from it. I guess my point is we all take risks taking photos, don't we? We go out shooting at night, we pull over to the side of a busy road a lot for that shot of the birds on the wire or the sunset, we stand too close to the edge of the cliff, we get too close to animals we don't know, and worse. We need to be careful, but I think with the right amount confidence and situational awareness, we can be pretty safe and sometimes take great photos, or in my case, so-so photos.

donaldejose said:
But people have somehow forgotten over the years that it is first YOUR responsibility to protect yourself."

Food for thought. Consider the "response time" when you throw your fate into a total reliance of the police to protect you.

AGREE! My LEO friends all tell me that their job is to investigate crime and find the criminals. Prevention is a minor part due to exactly what you have said.

And the places I have been, no doubt I have not exercised the best judgement. Thus the dogs with two trained handlers will be "watching over me" and I suspect this will eliminate any significant risk. Especially if the dog is within 10 feet behind me. At night with some of the equipment we use...200mm, f/2.0, for example, if mounted on a tripod, with two pit bulls and one Rottweiler nearby, I think I would be safe. Especially with the extensive training of the dogs. The "speak" command brings out some impressive comments from the dogs, not the kind of thing one would argue with.

And that is plan to carry out the idea of "that it is first YOUR responsibility to protect yourself." Thanks, donaldejose

If you can stay close to a vehicle with a panic alarm on your key fob, you could always push that panic button and the car alarm may scare off any bad guys: if you are somewhere people will hear it.

Here is an excerpt from an article written by a police officer:

"Buy a gun. Get a bat. Own some weapon and have enough skill to use it to save your own life and the lives of your family members. DO NOT RELY ON THE POLICE TO SAVE YOUR LIFE FOR YOU.

Wait. What's this? What heresy are you speaking of? Officer Smith, are you really telling me not to rely on the police to protect me? What about that "Protect and Serve" horse shit plastered all over the sides of their patrol cars? Aren't they SUPPOSED to protect me?

Now, let me explain.

Suppose some bad guy comes into your driveway and starts to attack you. When you (or perhaps your hopefully observant neighbor) call 911, what happens? The phone rings in some dispatch center and hopefully gets answered immediately. Now, let's assume for simplicity's sake that you are calling from your own home phone and your call is actually going to your local police. Remember that if you call 911 from your cell phone the call is usually routed to a mobile 911 call center, not to mention they will have the added chore of figuring out where you are if you're unable to tell them yourself.

Anyway, your call in this scenario is answered by your local police and a call taker begins collecting information from you such as your location, the type of emergency and what response is required. Elapsed time so far while you're getting your ass kicked: 2 minutes.

Now the call goes to a dispatcher who has to read the call, decide which officer(s) to send, and dispatch the call. On a good day: probably another minute.

So now you've been fighting for your life, or more likely laying there being beaten upon, for three minutes. The police are on the way. If an officer is immediately in your neighborhood, you may get a response within a minute or two. With four officers covering your entire city, figure 5 minutes is more likely. So you've now been under attack for 8 minutes. And that is under ideal circumstances. Longer times are far more likely. If your attacker is using a weapon of some sort you are most likely already dead or dying if that was their intent. Otherwise, they have most likely made whatever point it was they were trying to make and they have probably fled the scene. At this point the police arrive and find your bloody, beaten carcass in your driveway.

Where were the police? Why didn't they protect me? This is unacceptable! This is an outrage!

The police cannot be everywhere at all times. It takes time for you to get help when you call 911.

If the news this morning is any indication, people simply cannot grasp this concept. Berkeley cops arrived too late to save a man who was being beaten in his driveway. Now Berkeley residents are all in a tizzy because they think the police response was inadequate.

The response may not have been adequate to some people. But it was as fast as they were able to get there under the circumstances.

There were a lot of things conspiring against a good outcome in this situation. The police were short handed because of the occupy protesters. The neighbor who called was not clear to the call taker about what was happening. Who knows what else was happening at the time.

There are many other things that can cause a delay in police response. You may be in a fight and unable to talk to tell the call taker what's happening. Your neighbor who is calling for you may be hysterical and unable to tell the call taker what's happening. The call might be coming from a cell phone, which can add several minutes while the call is transferred to your local police. You may not even have a phone with you.

The bottom line is this. If you're depending on us, the police, to save your ass in any foreseeable situation, you're deluding yourself. You need to be able to protect and defend YOURSELF. Then, after you have taken care of business, you can call us to come clean up the mess. That way it'll be the person who attacked you who is bleeding in your driveway, instead of you.

Folks used to understand this, once upon a time. There has never been a time when the police would magically appear at the snap of your fingers. In fact, modern technology has made police response MUCH faster than it was at any time in the past. But people have somehow forgotten over the years that it is first YOUR responsibility to protect yourself."

Food for thought. Consider the "response time" when you throw your fate into a total reliance of the police to protect you.

BenH said:
Wow, yeah... Treasure Island at 5am. You were asking for trouble if you weren't there with a large crowd or with off duty cops like you said. (The police presence on the island is to answer calls, not to protect people taking pictures at 5am) That's a good vantage point of the city, though. You like Dark Alleys and City Streets Late at Night? Lady, if you're into looking for trouble, you'll eventually find it and in the People's Republic, the law is there to protect the criminals not regular folk so forget about using dogs or firearms.

Yeah, but I have done two solo cross country trips on a motorcycle, the last at age 66. And I regularly park my motorhome in truck stops. But, it could be the 3/4 inch fingernails with razor sharp edges, and the fact I hiss at strangers...??? And when my eyes turn green and flash, somehow the individuals approaching seem to retreat. Or, my T-shirt which says: "New Mexico Institute for the Criminally Insane, Albuquerque, New Mexico"

Well, I must agree with you about Treasure Island..... and had no one shown up, my photo would have been nice. But my safety became the primary goal and thus I had to "focus" on my "guest". And as most card players will tell you, one doesn't show all her cards at once. There were some other safe guards in place which I have not mentioned. And, gosh, I guess I need to get that plastic explosive with the loss-of-proximity-detonator updated as well..... huh? (Just kidding)

Oh, BenH, welcome to NRF. There is a vast amount of knowledge and then some real strange people like me here..... but one can learn a lot by just hanging around.

Wow, yeah... Treasure Island at 5am. You were asking for trouble if you weren't there with a large crowd or with off duty cops like you said. (The police presence on the island is to answer calls, not to protect people taking pictures at 5am) That's a good vantage point of the city, though. You like Dark Alleys and City Streets Late at Night? Lady, if you're into looking for trouble, you'll eventually find it and in the People's Republic, the law is there to protect the criminals not regular folk so forget about using dogs or firearms.

IndyGeoff said:
A big dog that doesn't like stranger is an nice option. It will alert you to anyone sneaking up and anyone that keeps coming at you while your dog is going nuts WANTS to hurt you and you can run like hell while your dog slows them down.

Seriously though, groups seem like the second best option. A police officer being the best.

Yeah, those firearms are very costly.

In Greensboro, NC, the police officers cost about $28 per hour, three hour minimum. So, if two folks share this it is $42 for couple hours. Also, groups at night generally will lose a lot of the ambiance. I will let you all know if any problems develop with the dogs.

A big dog that doesn't like stranger is an nice option. It will alert you to anyone sneaking up and anyone that keeps coming at you while your dog is going nuts WANTS to hurt you and you can run like hell while your dog slows them down.

Seriously though, groups seem like the second best option. A police officer being the best.

msmoto said:
And, do not forget. A firearm requires a practice session at least once a month to maintain any degree of proficiency. This is in and of itself a time consuming and very expensive activity if one goes through 40-50 rounds.....

My son is an Army ROTC student who shoots service sidearms competitively. I often go with him for his practice sessions. He gets a discount on ammo, but still, range time is expensive. We easily burn through $200 a session in ammo and range time.

$1,200 for the Sig and $1100 for the modified Beretta (corresponds to Canon vs Nikon), and $0.40 a shot for the ammo. It's like shooting color print photos in my old film days!

And, do not forget. A firearm requires a practice session at least once a month to maintain any degree of proficiency. This is in and of itself a time consuming and very expensive activity if one goes through 40-50 rounds.....

I would think most people would struggle to have the mindset in place to take good photos and also at any moment be fully prepared to whip out a handgun to possibly kill an assailant - even if they have the requisite skill and courage. The two things just don't gell together.

I also think people are very brave behind a keyboard but considerably less so in reality.

Not meant to offend, just try to be real. Best to go out in a large group perhaps.

It's probably a cultural thing. People just don't walk around with guns in the places i grew up and lived (Switzerland/New Zealand/Japan) ... violent crime in those places is relatively low and walking around with a gun is something only "crazy" people or people with a low self esteem would do.

Maybe i would change my point of view about guns if i lived in the states ... but I am still very skeptical that carrying a gun is the right thing. Plenty of stats and research out there that suggests that it's probably not if you value your health and life over property (that is probably insured anyway, right?).

donaldejose said:
Just don't go where you don't feel safe. No photo is worth it.

Yup, this is the bottom line. The dogs belong to my kids. I buy dinner, then we go "for a walk". The whistle is held by my son and is used to tell me someone is approaching from my blind side. Thus, I can turn and confront with a flashlight....LED flashing in the approaching individuals eyes. Or, the kids approach with the dogs, saying a little word, "Speak" which brings on a cacophony of barking.

Alone, requires a lot of very high level of alertness and as you have said, the gun can ONLY be used when one is approached. Legally to shoot someone retreating with the cameras does not work. Way too much force for the crime.

This has been an interesting thread. And, the final truth is exactly what you have said, donaldejose, No photo is worth it!

Risk varies with area and the type of people inhabiting that area. In 95% of America you can walk around all night long with essentially no risk. I was addressing what options exist in the other 5% when you want to go somewhere and you know it will be dangerous. Sure you can dial 911 and the police will be there to help you -- in about 10 to 20 minutes. But what will happen to you during those first 10 minutes? The strongest support you can have is a handgun. The wind will never blow the bullet back into your face like it can blow pepper spray back into your face. The best use of a handgun is really to deter criminals. When they see you pull it out as they approach, they simply leave you alone. That is what you want. You cannot shoot someone after they have taken your camera gear and are running away from you. You can only shoot when you are in reasonable danger of serious bodily harm and that danger no longer exists when they are running away. You cannot shoot to retrieve your property or to punish the person who stole it.

A 90 pound woman is stronger than three 190 pound dudes when she is holding a handgun in her hand as they size her up as a potential victim. Even the dumbest criminal knows that bullets can reach them long before they can reach you. Nothing says "don't mess with me" as well as a handgun. Of course, you must be alert to see the danger well before it is upon you and when we are looking at the scene for composition and looking through the viewfinder, it is easy to lose track of what is happening behind us.

Everyone is free to take whatever risk they want to take. I prefer to place as much risk taking upon the criminal and as little on me as possible. Likewise, I prefer to not give advice which places risk on the potential victim. For example, a whistle is only good when others hear it and look. So it is good in a crowded park in the middle of the day but it is of no value when you are alone at night and there is no one around other than you and the criminal. When the criminal looks around and sees no one is hearing your whistle they proceed as if it doesn't exist. Blow it all you want, you will only be a winded victim. A dog or dogs is a good idea. But if you are alone with a dog and your camera gear on a tripod and the dog starts to bark at a potential criminal you have to turn your attention to controlling that dog and by the time you turn your attention back to your camera on the tripod you may discover the criminal's compatriot in crime took it while the first criminal distracted you and your dog. More people and more dogs are good but of course then you need more people and more dogs. If you can pay people, just hire a security guard in the first place. I was addressing what a person could do when all alone. So all solutions can have weaknesses. Just don't go where you don't feel safe. No photo is worth it.

Gosh, I am so into a Glock w/ 147gr hollow point, but this is maybe not for me. FYI, I am in Greensboro, North Carolina, so San Francisco was just where I was at 4 or 5 AM. The two Pit Bulls and one Rottweiler and the dog handler's carrying a whistle will allow me to go about anywhere.

When alone, the problem is one of blind spots. And the criminals tend to come from nowhere, running, as they pass they knock you down and grab the camera going past. Often they will carry a cutting tool to take care of the strap, and if one has a security strap, steel cable or other, this means a broken arm or shoulder as they do not seem to care. If two or more are on the move.... more difficulty.

So, the incredible deterrent of three extremely capable animals, all of which are very well trained, is no doubt the way I will go. Incidentally, the training of these dogs is such that when fed, they sit looking at the food bowl until permission to eat is given.

Mmmm... the Glock, sounds so tempting, though. Only, when they go down, so does your camera.....

+1 for the wallet tossing & pepper spray, -1 for donaldejose trying to make you wear a gun.

I think i am getting to spoiled here in Japan ... safety at night out alone is just not really an issue here. No need for fake wallets.

I strongly agree using a pepper spray (best option) or a packet knife ( might have legal issue) at night.

As a experienced junior high kick-boxer , high school wrestler, college judo, boxer, mixed martial artist , self defense practitioner ( and many more) , I'd use a pepper spray in real life situation to save my life. I would not rely on any of my boxing ,muay thai, and jujitsu skills. Of course if you can use a knife, that would be even better. There is nothing more dangerous than a knife in a close range combat. And fighting someone would be my last defense . I wouldn't get into this situation at first by never go out alone to a dangerous area.

I think woman has far more potential danger than man. There are some trolls out there hunting woman with no morals. They think they are so bad ass and they believe they could do whatever they want. Specially walking around downtown S.F , you often find those kind trolls around. I believe its our duty to help whenever we spot a helpless woman facing a danger. i encourage woman carry a weapon at all time.

My security are my hands and my Manfrotto monopod :)

Nothing says get a job and buy your own stuff better than the bulge of a Kimber custom II in your jacket.

Wataru said:
No way you'll get a concealed carry permit in San Francisco, so that wouldn't be an option anyway.

Yeah right - you ever tried stuffing a pit bull in your jacket?

Keep safe, msmoto! No way you'll get a concealed carry permit in San Francisco, so that wouldn't be an option anyway.

Dogs are good, but I always have thought of my F2 on the end of my neck strap as an emergency "keep back" device. More dangerous than a nunchaku, and perfectly legal.

Rebirthing this thread..... my son, with a pit bull and a cane corso/pit bull mix and his fiancé with a Rottweiler, all on leashes, of course, will be about twenty feet behind me. And with a whistle. So, should some complete suicidal idiot decide they want my D4, well, it may be costly for them.

The bottom line for night security may be a companion, dog on leash is good, but the whistle, which will frighten any would be attackers and draw attention to a situation, may be the safest way to shoot at night. Of course it does cost a dinner for three... And the dog owners must maintain good housecleaning techniques.

See photo http://nikonrumors.com/forum/topic.php?id=4581&page=6

I am a sucker for alleyways when doing street photography so I've learned to be swift-footed and keep my distance... My weapon of choice is a 300mm f2.8 on a black rapid strap :P

Honestly though I do consider my monopod a weapon. It is best to know the area I am shooting in so I know where to run to...