Reality Show Assault on Photographer

[cyanatic]

<p>I didn't find anything about this in a PN search. Hits home with me because I often photographed in the area where this appears to have taken place (Gaslamp Quarter, San Diego). Vid starts with what looks like the photographer hitting the biker with his camera...but not sure yet what led up to it. </p>

<p>And please...no flame wars over "whose fault", approaches to SP, or what the "right way" is. Be careful out there.</p>

<p>NOTE: PN does not allow links to the website that the story comes from -- you can find story doing a google search of: </p>

<p>Discovery Channel Posts Video of Reality Show Assault on Photographer</p>

 

[Spearhead]

<p><a href="http://goo.gl/4otTs">Link</a></p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Thanks, Jeff.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Tried to look for more background and found the following. Looks like this occurred in January 2012!? Same first name and location. Hmmm. Sorry if I've posted ancient news here...</p>

<p><a href="http://www.flickr.com/groups/theicebox/discuss/72157629108161961/">http://www.flickr.com/groups/theicebox/discuss/72157629108161961/</a></p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>... the best justification I can see for a big hunkin' f/2.8 zoom and a grip!</p>

<p>I think it goes without saying that hitting someone with a multi-thousand-dollar club is probably an act of desperation. If he had planned to assault the biker, he probably would have chosen something cheaper like an iron pipe.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>Maybe I should dig out my old Honeywell Strobonar 780s when venturing out in public. First a powerful flash to the eyes, and then I club the na'er-do-well over the head! Hey, I could even don spandex and be a superhero -- Flashwoman!</p>

<p>---------------------------------------</p>

<p>... "Ouch, that hurt, Flashwoman! You packin' lead in that thing?"<br>

... "Er, no... but I did replace the NiCd cells in the head with NiMH."</p>

[daverhaas]

<p>Reading the follow-ups and articles on this - sounds like the producer or director told the cops he started it, cops believed her, then in order to prevent interruption of the filming had the photographer walk a block away to an ambulance. </p>

<p>I'm starting to like Discovery Channel less and less...it is now down with A and E and History Channel </p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>First a powerful flash to the eyes...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You will do jail time for that. My powerful flash says quite explicitly that it can cause permanent damage if discharged close to someone's eyes.</p>

<p><img src="http://i46.tinypic.com/zlyaag.jpg" alt="" /></p>

<p>The situation in the OP is ambiguous. As bad as the scuffle was it does not appear anyone suffered serious permanent damage. Throwing permanent retinal damage and possibly blindness into the mix would definitely make the DA take this situation to a whole other level a la Zimmerman/Martin. If people are going to retaliate with deadly or permanently blinding force you better make sure there are unbiased witnesses, video tape, and the other party is armed and attacking.</p>

<p>Anyway I know you are joking, but someone is going to read your post and get cute. Not everyone is as level headed as you are.</p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I don't believe a flash could cause any permanent retinal damage. It's not bright enough or focused enough. I'm not aware of any evidence for damage ever occurring either in humans or animals from typical photo flash use, and it has been studied. It's a typical CYA manufacturer statement. It probably says don't eat the flash or set fire to it or put it in the microwave too.</p>

<p>Obviously it can dazzle someone and maybe make it difficult to see properly for a few seconds (or munutes if the eye is dark adapted) , but that's about it. To do any damage you'd probably have to have the flash within a few inches of the eye and pop it 100 or 1000 times. Even then you probably wouldn't do any permanent harm.</p>

<p>More info here - <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17016736">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17016736</a> and here <a href="http://www.naturescapes.net/042004/do0404.htm">http://www.naturescapes.net/042004/do0404.htm</a></p>

<p>

However note that assault does not require physical contact or physical harm. "Assault is the tort of acting intentionally, that is with either general or specific intent, causing the reasonable apprehension of an immediate harmful or offensive contact" (wikipedia), So you could then assault someone with a flash, even if the flash did them no harm. Of course you could also do the same thing with a stick of rhubarb...

[jeff_sudduth]

<p>Bob here are the full safety instruction for my flash...<br>

<img src="http://i47.tinypic.com/2j2i1vl.jpg" alt="" /><br>

Nothing about eating it or putting it in a Microwave.</p>

<p>I would not take the chance of flashing the thing at full strength at anything other than a reasonable distance. The problem you have in places like the United States is lawyers. If you are involved in a scuffle and put your flash up against someone's eyes and give them a full burst you are going to be in deep doo doo if their lawyer finds the manual for your flash. Can you beat the case? Maybe. Do you want to take the chance? Probably not. I've seen professionals that do everything right and still take six figure hits in court (ie malpractice lawsuits). I wouldn't take the chance of doing something you are explicitly warned not to do in the users' manual.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<ul>

<li><em>300 words about *actual* physical assault putting photographer in hospital.</em></li>

<li><em>400+ word speculative digression about whether camera flash is deadly, including twenty seven eight-by-ten color glossy pictures with the circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one explaining what each one was to be used as evidence against us.</em></li>

</ul>

<p><br /><br />This is why we can't have nice things.</p>

[cyanatic]

<p>Must be something in the air lately, Lex. I've noticed a number of threads going awry...more awry than normal for PN. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sarah, obviously next time you play Flashwoman, don't forget to read the user guide first!<br>

(<em>One of the problems with online forums always remains that it can be hard to understand when somebody is joking, and when not. Given the recent increase in humour-related incidents here, maybe there is a seasonality to it?</em>)<br>

____<br>

OK, back to the OP.<br>

Just a really sad story. The fact that the victim was a photographer is nearly irrelevant (though I can imagine swning a pro DSLR with a 70-200 f/2.8 in a face is going to hurt). I haven't seen this series ever, but what saddens me most is quotes like "Well, I got sent down there to do a job and the job was to keep an eye out on the ladies and protect them and somebody was posing as a threat, so we had to do a dance". Expressed like it is completely OK, justified and normal to react this way.<br>

Sure Discovery can tell me that I should be intellegent enough to see through this and respect their "unbiassed" approach. If it was journalism, I would agree. But it's TV made to be sensational and attract large audiences. And as such, I really wonder what purpose it actually has.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>The irony is that here in Virginia, if you reasonably think your life is in danger, you can pull out a gun and SHOOT your attacker.... but pull out a ca. 1976 Honeywell Strobonar 780s, and you're in deep merde! Equally ironic, if you are charitable with your attacker and only shoot him in the foot, so that you can get away from him, you've committed assault and can be jailed. Even "brandishing" your firearm (e.g. pointing it at him and saying, "I'll shoot you if you come any closer") is a crime. Spray the guy in the face with mace, you suggest? That's assault. You're only protected by the law if you kill the guy with a gun. Only in America!</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>BTW, the instructions for the closely related Strobonar 770 (kindly provided online by Mr. Butkus) discuss things not to do to prevent damage to the flash, but there's no CYA legal verbage concerning flashing the unit into someone's eyes. Ah, the 70's, in many ways a much more sane era!</p>

<p>In any event, bringing this back on topic, hitting someone in the face with a big DSLR, grip, and "big white" lens is assault, and it's likely to be more damaging than a flash in the eyes. Technically, everyone involved in the scuffle should have been arrested, and the judge would have sorted it all out the next day.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>More info here - <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17016736" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17016736</a> and here<a href="http://www.naturescapes.net/042004/do0404.htm" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.naturescapes.net/042004/do0404.htm</a></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Excellent data Bob, useful for scientifically pointing out that flash doesn't harm the eyes. There's always comments about that regarding baby pix, but it looks like it's not a problem for anyone.</p>

[jeff_sudduth]

<blockquote>

<p>Excellent data Bob, useful for scientifically pointing out that flash doesn't harm the eyes. There's always comments about that regarding baby pix, but it looks like it's not a problem for anyone.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Firing a flash a few feet from a babies eyes has always been within the acceptable use of a flash. The instructions I posted do not contradict that. Near the bottom of the list there is an interesting admonishment about blocking the flash with an opaque material and burning. Trust me if you are shooting portraits and walk up to a baby, place the flash on their eyes, and discharge it you will be arrested for child abuse. By the way thanks for the link. I don't understand some of this forums linking policies.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The irony is that here in Virginia, if you reasonably think your life is in danger, you can pull out a gun and SHOOT your attacker.... but pull out a ca. 1976 Honeywell Strobonar 780s, and you're in deep merde! Equally ironic, if you are charitable with your attacker and only shoot him in the foot, so that you can get away from him, you've committed assault and can be jailed. Even "brandishing" your firearm (e.g. pointing it at him and saying, "I'll shoot you if you come any closer") is a crime. Spray the guy in the face with mace, you suggest? That's assault. You're only protected by the law if you kill the guy with a gun. Only in America!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Sarah, our gun laws are screwy there is no doubt about that but most of that post simply is not true. In any case where the use of a gun is allowed you can most definitely flash away no problem. The problem is whatever you do with your weapon of choice cannot be undone, so if you make a mistake in the eyes of the court, you will do the time. The "nice" thing about killing someone though is dead men tell no tales. The cops only have the physical evidence and your side of the story. That's why often a kill shot is better than a wounding. Again I refer you to Zimmerman/Martin.</p>

<p>The OP is ambiguous. It probably is useless for us to play internet court and assign blame. The take away message should be, is any picture really worth that degree of risk and hassle? If I'm going to photograph someone without their permission I'm surreptitious or I do it with a group of other photographers. But honestly 99% of the time I simply find something else to photograph... especially if they are associated with the Devil's Ride. Last time I checked this is exactly the behavior one should expect from tattooed bikers.</p>

[jerry_sousa]

<p>" Last time I checked this is exactly the behavior one should expect from tattooed bikers." Yes, Shame on the Discovery Channel for making videos with criminals. The photographer should sue Discovery Channel and the biker.</p>

[starshooter]

<p>Those corny warnings are stuff made up by legions of attorneys who get paid by the hour to write stuff and who know how stupid the lawsuit, anyone can sue anybody for anything. The government sued a company names Fox because there was no fox fur in the bluejean overalls they made.<br>

I don't know about you but I live in the real world not the Cloud Cookooland.<br>

FYI the old Speed Graphic was wonderful for defending oneself against violent perps who didn't want their photo taken, being wanted in seven states and all.</p>