- 161
- 57
- Joined
- Jul 23, 2012
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
What was the photographer supposed to do? Adopt the kid? I'm sure the bird didn't attack the child if thats what you are implying.Some of you seem surprised.
After this photo was published in 1994, I realised we live in a sad world...
for those who may not get it, instead of the photographer helping that little girl, he waited and took this image smh
Its a sad situation I feel sorry for the family and of course the victim.
Ny'ers aren't that demented like the douche bag who took the time to take a pic than rather save dudes life.
Over this past summer a bus driver saved a little girl who was autistic that fell from top of a building.
Years ago some dude caught a seizure and fell into the tracks. Some random guy jumped in and curled himself and seizure dude in the middle of tracks while the train was hurling underneath them into the platform, both of them lived.
I hope they find the dude who pushed him and give him the needle.
btw Fox News owns New York Post. No wonder the headline reeks ignorance.
Some of you seem surprised.
After this photo was published in 1994, I realised we live in a sad world...
URL]
for those who may not get it, instead of the photographer helping that little girl, he waited and took this image smh
What was the photographer supposed to do? Adopt the kid? I'm sure the bird didn't attack the child if thats what you are implying.
Dude was doing his job. That is a location thing. Don't judge the camera man from this one pic.
What was the photographer supposed to do? Adopt the kid? I'm sure the bird didn't attack the child if thats what you are implying.
Dude was doing his job. That is a location thing. Don't judge the camera man from this one pic.
What was the photographer supposed to do? Adopt the kid? I'm sure the bird didn't attack the child if thats what you are implying.
Dude was doing his job. That is a location thing. Don't judge the camera man from this one pic.
The photographer claimed he was just doing his job. Most people said he could have tried to shoo the vulture away. Some say he could have picked up the child and put her in a safer place.
Let's face it, it's a bit of a distasteful photo. We all know that bird was waiting for that girl to die, so it can eat.
Btw, the photographer committed suicide a few years later.
This dude really just took the pic and then watched dude die? Woooooooow.
I thought people out here in LA were bad and only considerate of themselves. NY make us look like saints.
The photographer claimed he was just doing his job. Most people said he could have tried to shoo the vulture away. Some say he could have picked up the child and put her in a safer place.
Let's face it, it's a bit of a distasteful photo. We all know that bird was waiting for that girl to die, so it can eat.
Btw, the photographer committed suicide a few years later.
Picture is not distasteful, is history, it shows us the harsh reality of poverty in that side of the world, is not to say that the photographer didn't do something after snapping the shot, taking the pic and walking off would be foul, simply taking the pic as part of his job, chill...ya reaching
Picture is not distasteful, is history, it shows us the harsh reality of poverty in that side of the world, is not to say that the photographer didn't do something after snapping the shot, taking the pic and walking off would be foul, simply taking the pic as part of his job, chill...ya reaching
you do know there was probably a whole community of sick and dying people in that same area right? The photographer is there to show the world reality.Fortunately with art (or photography) it can be interpreted in different ways. That seems to be the way you've interpreted it. However, the image wouldn't have caused such a stir if the whole world viewed it your way. Plenty of people have viewed the image as simply a photographer saying he's just doing his job, instead of actually helping a sick and dying individual right in front of them. That was the reason I posted the image. A human being needed help (not necessarily adoption), just help, and instead another human being decided to take a photo instead of helping the child.Picture is not distasteful, is history, it shows us the harsh reality of poverty in that side of the world, is not to say that the photographer didn't do something after snapping the shot, taking the pic and walking off would be foul, simply taking the pic as part of his job, chill...ya reachingThe photographer claimed he was just doing his job. Most people said he could have tried to shoo the vulture away. Some say he could have picked up the child and put her in a safer place.
Let's face it, it's a bit of a distasteful photo. We all know that bird was waiting for that girl to die, so it can eat.
Btw, the photographer committed suicide a few years later.
ok judge a whole city based on one guy