What would/should you do?

Even though photographing abhorrent crimes such as the executions in Vietnam or by warring African tribes isn't likely to stop these atrocities, not doing so IMO is even worse.

I'm not deluded enough to think that if I witnessed a vigilante attack on a hapless victim by a mob, that I alone could do anything to prevent the murder. Indeed if I tried I'd only add to the death count.

So personally I'd do the photography and record the event. I've personally witnessed murders in the past ( in Amsterdam - drug wars ) - I didn't have a camera on me at the the time, but there was nothing I could do to stop it and as it was a personal dispute I didn't feel personally threatened. Although in that particular case I think had I started snapping the situation I would have been also shot to prevent my pics from identifying the shooter.

So with that in mind I would advise anyone snapping such a criminal event to be damn careful

That is not what I was saying, I was saying because violence is such an everyday event, when witnessing violence or indeed famine scenes etc does it affect the viewer at all ie want to send cash to help, or is it just a big yawn. Familiarity breeds contempt. I'm not saying play Quake III and you'll go out and shoot up a school.

Faced with a mob I'd take a quick snap or two if safe to do so then quietly slip away.

Faced with a one on one it would depend on the circumstances as I have witnessed the helper being attacked by both parties.

As a male if I saw a child in distress in the street again my first instinct would be to help but because these days unfortunately "all men are classed as paedophiles", common sense would preavail and I'd avoid the situation.

Can photographs be used to perpetuate violence? Images were taken of many American lynchings, right into the 20th century, and distributed as postcards and souvenirs. http://withoutsanctuary.org/

The modern version of this is the ubiquitous filming of vengeful killing in some Middle Eastern countries.

Here's a good description of when nick ut got involved in helping Kim phuc in Vietnam

link

There's also the aspect of Photographs being manipulated to tell lies. her's a classic lie from the evening Standard in 2003

http://www.smeggys.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=11408

And here's a more recent photographic lie about the Syrian war fabrication

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/s720x720/378366_448855868481050_1467555113_n.jpg

I realise this has strayed a little, but I still believe that a photograph along with testimony from the photographer still has power.

I would like to think that I would intervene, but if I couldn't I would try to document.

I agree. My points are that it can be both power for good or power for bad

You've just reminded me of an event which made the news in Leiden - 30 miles south of A'dam. Workers of a local pancake house turn up and find two corpses on the track leading to the restaurant....turns out it was a hit connected to the A'dam drug trials and one of them was the hitman...bullets, guns, everywhere... as it was close to the main road between The Hague and A'dam (A4) the police were very vigilant to install screens to protect the view from the road......yet next door was a McDonalds and no screens would have put a few kids off their burgers and strawberry milkshakes I'm sure.


Returning the original point of the topic...the photographers are 'driven' to capture images and most probably can detach themselves psychologically from the events unfolding. Without these people we would not see much of what goes on - this is why I enjoy the International Press Awards - sometimes these traumatic events catch up with the photographers in time but I am in no position to judge the photographer - in most cases they will not be equipped to deal with the unfolding events - only a camera, street sense and an escape route. How many photographers get drawn and sucked in, and die along with their stories?