The man died when the train hit him. The post then put that picture on the front page.
The photographer says he took the pictures in the hopes the driver would stop.
Whether or not he helped isn't the issue. It's the fact that he stood around taking pictures, which ended up on the front page of the newspaper (and probably lined his pockets quite a bit). How is it acceptable that this photographer profited off another man's death?
From what I read, the whole thing happened so quickly that no witnesses were able to help him in time. Lets not forget that the photographer was not the one who PUSHED this poor man onto the tracks. I think its sad that so much blame has been placed on him for the death of the victim.
Yeah, roight. He saw an opportunity to get a picture that he could maybe sell to the rags, and was more concerned about his pocketbook than the life of another human being. Pathetic.
The photographer stated that the reason he was taking the pictures was so that the train driver would see his flash and stop....yea....right. I will take the Golden Gate Bridge for a dollar please! If he would have only grabbed his arm, the guy would most likely be alive today. So sad.
by melissam78December 6, 2012 at 7:30 AMOmg that is horrible,I would grab the mans hands and pull w/everything I had,at least I would have tried.I get people are afraid BUT if you were the one n trouble you'd pray someone would try to help,taking pictures,that's disgusting