# Man Pushed In Front Of Subway Train



## CHamilton (Dec 4, 2012)

Man Pushed In Front Of Train; Pic Makes Cover Of Post



> In tragic and horrifying news out of New York today, police are searching for a man who was caught on camera pushing a man to his death onto subway tracks.
> The incident occurred around 12:30 on Monday; the victim, 58-year old Ki Suk Han, fell onto the tracks and was unable to pull himself up before the train hit him. Witnesses say he was alive after he was hit and was moving; the scene was so grisly that the conductor had to be treated for trauma afterward.


----------



## RRrich (Dec 4, 2012)

The New York Post is a terrible yellow rag of a newspaper and New York City is a wonderful place to visit but I don't want to live there. This an example of why.


----------



## Carolyn Jane (Dec 4, 2012)

I lived in NYC for 10 years. When people would ask me how I liked living in NY, I would answer 'a little less every year'. I joined the army to get out of NYC. CJ


----------



## GG-1 (Dec 4, 2012)

Aloha

I used to live in NYC and enjoyed the time. One thing that used to be taught was if you fell off the platform, lie down between the rails as there was enough clearance.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 4, 2012)

I've been to New York City several times and although I usually enjoy myself I would never expect any locals to help me in a time of need. No, I would expect them to gawk and snicker while taking photographs or videos. Just like this sorry group did.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 5, 2012)

GG-1 said:


> One thing that used to be taught was if you fell off the platform, lie down between the rails as there was enough clearance.


That's not always true Eric. Yes, in some places it will work. But there are plenty of places where that will not work.

Actually the best thing you can do in most stations is to get into the middle clearance area between the different roadbeds, where the support columns are for the ceiling. Or in the case of center island platforms, the cutaways where the workers stand when trains go by. Then wait for help to come after the trains stop moving.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 5, 2012)

Here in Washington, there's supposedly enough of an overhang on the platforms that you can lay down in with sufficient clearance under the platform edge at every station. That also has the added benefit of keeping you away from the 3rd rail, which is always on the far side.

I guess that's not the case in NY?


----------



## AlanB (Dec 5, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Here in Washington, there's supposedly enough of an overhang on the platforms that you can lay down in with sufficient clearance under the platform edge at every station. That also has the added benefit of keeping you away from the 3rd rail, which is always on the far side.
> 
> I guess that's not the case in NY?


In many cases that is true in NY, but not all. And one still must take great care to make sure you are in far enough, as getting tapped by one of the third rail shoes will electrocute you very quickly. Hence if at all possible, it's better to go the other way as you know that you're past the reach of the third rail shoes because you're past the third rail.

And while I haven't inspected every station, in most stations the third rail is indeed farthest from the platform and I believe that is always the practice in all.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 5, 2012)

Good point, I never thought about proximity to the third rail shoe sticking out on the platform side of the train.

I wonder how much space there really is under those platforms...


----------



## fairviewroad (Dec 5, 2012)

I think most people could figure out a way if they were given a couple of minutes. The real trick is getting to safety while the actual light of the train is bearing down on you. I'm not sure why the photog thought flashing his camera at the train operator would help...seems like that would be a distraction as well as potentially blinding.


----------



## CHamilton (Dec 5, 2012)

> 'NY Post' Photographer: I Was Too Far Away To Reach Man Hit By TrainBy now you've probably heard about the front page photo on Tuesday's New York Post of a man struggling to climb out of an approaching subway train's way. He had been pushed on to the tracks by a stranger.
> 
> Ki-Suk Han, 58, did not make it. He died from the injuries he received.
> 
> ...


----------



## AlanB (Dec 5, 2012)

fairviewroad said:


> I'm not sure why the photog thought flashing his camera at the train operator would help...seems like that would be a distraction as well as potentially blinding.


Normally a good operator would come flying into the station at track speed and would start applying the brakes about halfway down the platform. I'm sure that the photographer was thinking/hopping that by flashing the operator that he would realize that there was danger ahead and apply the brakes sooner. One doesn't even need to see to apply the brakes; simply taking his hand off the throttle puts the train into emergency.

Only the operator can tell us what he did/didn't do if he even saw the light from the photographer.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 5, 2012)

AlanB said:


> fairviewroad said:
> 
> 
> > I'm not sure why the photog thought flashing his camera at the train operator would help...seems like that would be a distraction as well as potentially blinding.
> ...


You're *sure* huh?

Because so far this photographer doesn't appear to be the kind of person who is grounded in logic or honesty.

Waving your _*arms*_ frantically might get the operator's attention.

Taking a series of surprisingly steady *in-focus* photos?

What sort of safety minded source is *that* kind of advice coming from?

Maybe the book of _*selling*_ the pain of others for profit and fame?

For those who are still confused enough to think the folks on the platform were doing all they could to save this man's life, this is how it's done...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSxR5vV7syI

This is _*NOT*_ how it's done...


----------



## Texan Eagle (Dec 5, 2012)

From that picture it seems the guy who has fallen onto the tracks is standing at the edge of the track, staring into the train. I certainly don't know how many seconds he had before the train hit him, but if he was already upright, wonder why he did not start running away from the train on the tracks instead of standing there? I know you cannot win over a train's speed but it at least increases the time by a few seconds between you and the train, giving the engineer critical extra time to maybe stop the train. I also know when you have death staring at you, mind goes blank, but I think my survival instinct in such a case would have thought only one thing-*RUN! RUN THE F*** AWAY FROM THE TRAIN AS FAST AS YOU CAN! *


----------



## Anderson (Dec 5, 2012)

TE,

I tend to agree. I'm guessing that it was a panic lockup on his part, but especially since the train would presumably already be braking, he'd at least have a _shot_ of making it (especially if the operator also notices the guy running and slams the brake harder). With that said, I'd kind of like to see the photographer sued for both standing by _and_ taking a picture for publication that inflicts emotional distress.

As to the light from the photographer...that's a pretty non-descript signal that could quite simply be a subway foamer aiming for a good shot.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 6, 2012)

Anderson said:


> I tend to agree. I'm guessing that it was a panic lockup on his part, but especially since the train would presumably already be braking, he'd at least have a _shot_ of making it (especially if the operator also notices the guy running and slams the brake harder).


Once the operator hits the mushroom (emergency brake button), and the motorman indicated that he did hit the schroom, there is no such thing as braking harder. In fact, the operator could get up and run to the far end of the car if he was about to hit something more substantial in an attempt to save his own life. There is nothing more that he can do, save maybe praying, once he's smacked the schroom. There are no other brakes to apply, there is no lever, button, or brake handle that he can push at all, much less harder to stop the train faster.

Emergency braking is the maximum amount of braking physically possible and it is uncontrollable.

Had the guy managed to get out of the way, the operator has no way to stop the emergency brake application and coast to a more gently & normal stop. That train will continue braking at maximum until it is stopped and the brakes are recharged.



Anderson said:


> With that said, I'd kind of like to see the photographer sued for both standing by _and_ taking a picture for publication that inflicts emotional distress.


According to the reports that I've seen, and I grant that they were preliminary, the photographer was too far away to have reached the man in time to help him. The photog was on one of the morning shows and made that same claim. And the police so far don't seem to be contradicting his claim.

And sadly, I rather suspect that he's probably got a far more emotionally distressing shot that wasn't published, since Mr. Han was pinned between the subway car and the platform.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 6, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > fairviewroad said:
> ...


Based upon the reports that I had seen as of this morning, yes, I'm sure.



Texas Sunset said:


> Waving your _*arms*_ frantically might get the operator's attention.


Not a chance! Unlikely that the operator would have seen waving arms that far away. Subway stations are nearly 2 blocks long. Waving & flashing lights would be far more effective in this case. Not only would it be far more likely to catch the operator's eye, it's also what they're trained to be on the lookout for. Not because people fall on the tracks, but a waving flashlight is one of the indicators to a TO that workers are on the trackbed and that he/she needs to slow way down and take extra care as he passes, as well as sounding the horn.



Texas Sunset said:


> What sort of safety minded source is *that* kind of advice coming from?


Assuming that I wasn't dealing directly with the victim, I can assure you that I would have been running down that platform waving my mag light at the TO hoping to get him to hit the schroom as soon as possible!



Texas Sunset said:


> For those who are still confused enough to think the folks on the platform were doing all they could to save this man's life, this is how it's done...


You weren't there and we don't know what, if anything anyone did to try to help him. The circumstances are different depending on the situation. Heck, even the MTA in a story today basically said that what works in one station in terms of trying to get out of the way of an oncoming train may not work in the next station.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 6, 2012)

AlanB said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


So watching a softball morning news segment is enough for *you* to be certain but when anyone disagrees with your hypothetical assessment suddenly it's "You weren't there and we don't know what, if anything anyone did to try to help him." How convenient.



AlanB said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > Waving your _*arms*_ frantically might get the operator's attention.
> ...


(1) Which appendage is doing the waving in your example?

(2) How likely do you think it is that the sudden repetition of bright flashes was at least as distracting to the apparently confused and struggling VICTIM as it was to the train operator?

(3) Does seeing no benefit whatsoever change your mind about the futility of using a generic camera flash to signal the operator?



AlanB said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > What sort of safety minded source is *that* kind of advice coming from?
> ...


Just like the photographer who somehow managed to get crystal clear images while running and waving carefully setting up his lucky photo for a quick payday.



AlanB said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > For those who are still confused enough to think the folks on the platform were doing all they could to save this man's life, this is how it's done...
> ...


Neither were you, but that didn't stop you from telling us how _*sure*_ you were about what was going on in this guy's head, no matter how nonsensical that sounds.



AlanB said:


> The circumstances are different depending on the situation. Heck, even the MTA in a story today basically said that what works in one station in terms of trying to get out of the way of an oncoming train may not work in the next station.


Apparently in this particular station carefully preparing crisp photos and selling them to a tabloid is the best way to save a life.


----------



## Trogdor (Dec 6, 2012)

I'll just say this: Unless you're personally faced with a sudden, unexpected, emergency life-and-death situation, you are in no position to say what someone else who was there should have done.

Looking back on it now, it seems ridiculous that someone would think a single camera flash would alert the operator and get him to stop. Just like it seems obvious that instead of trying to jump from the track onto the platform, the victim should have run away/run over to the other side/ducked under the platform edge/laid between the rails, etc.

But when you're not expecting something to happen, and have no prior personal experience with that sort of event, your brain can be in a momentary state of shock and logic doesn't necessarily kick in right away. The couple of seconds that it takes for your brain to sort things out could very well be the difference between someone living and someone dying, but nonetheless, that's just how it is.

Now, it could be that the photographer is lying about certain details in order to try and minimize the criticism thrown his way. But it's also possible that what he's saying was true, at least as his brain was figuring during the few seconds he had to react. In the absence of anything more concrete, I'll defer to someone who was there (the photographer, in his statements to the police/press) rather than someone sitting behind a computer in Texas safely removed from any actual direct contact or personal experience with the situation.

As for the newspaper's decision to publish the photo on their front page, I think that was rather poor taste, and the editors certainly had more than two seconds to react and make the decision on what to put there. But then again, with the quality of news reporting these days, sometimes I wonder if anybody even spends two seconds thinking about what they post/publish.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 6, 2012)

Trogdor said:


> Just like it seems obvious that instead of trying to jump from the track onto the platform, the victim should have run away/run over to the other side/ducked under the platform edge/laid between the rails, etc.


The difference is that the victim had been thrown off the platform and down into the tracks. I would not expect anyone to be thinking calmly and clearly at that point. Unless I’m mistaken the photographer had not been arguing with anyone, had not been pushed by anyone, and had not been tossed off the platform and down onto the tracks. His ability to ready his camera, steady the frame, and focus the lens implies he wasn't frozen by confusion and concern like the victim may have been.



Trogdor said:


> Now, it could be that the photographer is lying about certain details in order to try and minimize the criticism thrown his way. But it's also possible that what he's saying was true, at least as his brain was figuring during the few seconds he had to react.


Nobody is expecting random strangers to be heroes, whether or not they have cameras or flashlights or bullhorns or torches. It was Mr. Abbasi’s *calm and deliberate* decision to sell someone else’s misery for profit and fame _*after the fact*_ that shows even when his head is clear his morality is still full of fog and haze. If he didn't want to be criticized with a crash course in blow back then maybe he shouldn't have sold his macabre photo to a scummy tabloid. If he had kept his photos between himself and the investigators none of this unpleasant criticism would have happened. As for my opinion being disqualified simply because I wasn't there I guess it never occurred to you that your own opinion fails to meet the same high standard. In fact virtually nothing in this thread meets that standard.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 6, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Texas Sunset said:
> ...


I know that it's hard for you to accept logic and that you love to try to find the obscure and ridiculous in anything; but when the man stands up on live TV and announces that he was hoping to attract the attention of the train operator with the flash; then yes I'm sure that's what he was thinking.

Now, is it possible that he only thought of that after the fact? Sure! But regardless of whether he thought of that as a cover story or if he really was thinking of it at the time of the incident, I *am sure that he thought of it!* He told us so on live TV!



Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Texas Sunset said:
> ...


Huh?



Texas Sunset said:


> (2) How likely do you think it is that the sudden repetition of bright flashes was at least as distracting to the apparently confused and struggling VICTIM as it was to the train operator?


Very unlikely. Again TO's are trained to react to flashing lights as a sign of danger. I've personally seen TO's move their hand to hover over the mushroom simple because someone took a flash photo of a train entering the station. A few even backed off on the power just in case.

Yes, it is possible that the flashes made things worse for the already confused victim. No one will ever know in this case.



Texas Sunset said:


> (3) Does seeing no benefit whatsoever change your mind about the futility of using a generic camera flash to signal the operator?


There is no futility here; except maybe in explaining things to you. Sorry! Again, flashes of anything would call the attention of the motorman to what's ahead and perhaps get him to slap that mushroom a few seconds earlier than he might have otherwise done. And seconds matter here. My understanding of things is that Mr. Han was pinned by the first car. That means that had the TO hit the Schroom even 5 to 10 seconds sooner, Mr. Han would probably still be alive today.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 6, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Texas Sunset said:
> ...


First, it's nothing like it at all, and it is decidedly unfair of you to suggest such.

Second, there are no indications that the photographer was running or waving anything.

Third, you have zero evidence that he "carefully set up that photo." I could have snapped that photo with my iPhone without setting up.



Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Texas Sunset said:
> ...


It's not nonsense when I watched the man make the statement on live TV.

Again, we can debate about whether he thought of it at the time of the incident or if he thought of it after the fact. But there is no question that he thought of it.


----------



## Bob Dylan (Dec 6, 2012)

The Good News in this Sad Situation is that the "Thug" who ("Allegedly "as the Lawyers make people say!)Murdered this Poor Innocent Guy has been Arrested! :excl: As has been said, no-one who has ever been faced with an Instant Life-Death Situation really knows how they will re-act until it actually happens! Ive had several such happenings in my Life and I think I'd be Terrfied and maybe Freeze-up if someone pushed me in front of an on coming Fast Train! Shock is a Strange thing! :help:

As to the So -called Photographer and the Sleazy Tabloid, I think the saying in the Media is still: "If it Bleeds, it Leads!"


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 6, 2012)

AlanB said:


> I know that it's hard for you to accept logic and that you love to try to find the obscure and ridiculous in anything; but when the man stands up on live TV and announces that he was hoping to attract the attention of the train operator with the flash; then yes I'm sure that's what he was thinking.


You didn’t actually dispute my point. All you did was remind us that Mr. Abbasi was on live television pleading for compassion and inform us that this was somehow enough to make you certain as to what was going on in his head. Now you're changing your tune slightly to say that you're only certain his mind has to think up words before his mouth can express them. Yeah, I don't think anyone was actually disputing that you have to actually _think_ of a lie before you can articulate it, but thanks for the straw man retort. In my view his choice to take photos during a lethal crisis and especially to then _*sell*_ those photos for fame and profit _*after the fact*_ was a much stronger piece of evidence for me.



AlanB said:


> Now, is it possible that he only thought of that after the fact? Sure! But regardless of whether he thought of that as a cover story or if he really was thinking of it at the time of the incident, I *am sure that he thought of it!* He told us so on live TV!


That’s not really the same thing is it? In one case he’s frantically trying to save someone else’s life. In the other case he’s frantically trying to save his own honor after financially benefiting from the death of a stranger. Maybe to you that’s an irrelevant consideration but to me those are two entirely different situations that speak volumes about what sort of character Mr. Abbasi is likely to be.



AlanB said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


I was looking for “arms” here, just like I had suggested. I even posted video of people doing exactly as I described whereby the subway is able to stop early and actually save a life. I guess in your view that kind of general advice is worthless because every station is so incredibly different from one another.



AlanB said:


> I've personally seen TO's move their hand to hover over the mushroom simple because someone took a flash photo of a train entering the station. A few even backed off on the power just in case.


Too bad correlation _*does not*_ imply causation or you’d be a genius.



AlanB said:


> Yes, it is possible that the flashes made things worse for the already confused victim. No one will ever know in this case.


Well, unless Mr. Abbasi goes on _live television_ to say the victim was unaffected by his photographs. At which point one of us may suddenly be _sure_ it must be true.



AlanB said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > (3) Does seeing no benefit whatsoever change your mind about the futility of using a generic camera flash to signal the operator?
> ...


Sorry you're having a difficult time explaining your mind reading abilities to a non-believer.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 6, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> His ability to ready his camera, steady the frame, and focus the lens implies he wasn't frozen by confusion and concern like the victim may have been.


I think you're greatly overestimating the amount of thought needed to take the picture.

I can't say I would have the presence of mind to do much of anything if I were in the same situation (which is why I asked questions about how to avoid getting injured if you end up on the tracks upthread), but if I end up with a picture of a newsworthy event such as that one, I don't see where it's immoral to make it available. It's an absolutely tragic picture knowing what's about to happen, but I'm not sure why you're railing against it being published.

Heck, who knows, maybe the extra publicity on the story because of the picture being published help lead to the killer being caught?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 6, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > His ability to ready his camera, steady the frame, and focus the lens implies he wasn't frozen by confusion and concern like the victim may have been.
> ...


A sloppy split second picture of a stationary object in bright sunlight is easy and quick. A well cropped crystal clear picture of a _moving_ subway in a poorly lit cavern is an entirely different situation in my experience. Then again maybe my DSLR isn't nearly as advanced and sophisticated as Alan's amazing phone camera.



Ryan said:


> I can't say I would have the presence of mind to do much of anything if I were in the same situation (which is why I asked questions about how to avoid getting injured if you end up on the tracks upthread), but if I end up with a picture of a newsworthy event such as that one, I don't see where it's immoral to make it available. It's an absolutely tragic picture knowing what's about to happen, but I'm not sure why you're railing against it being published.


There's nothing immoral about making it available to the investigators and allowing them to release it as a public service for free. Apparently Mr. Abbasi thought he'd get some sort of hero's welcome for selling his photos of the victim to the NY Post and is disappointed to be met with criticism instead. Maybe in New York he's still a hero no matter what he did, but where I come from you don't attempt to take any credit for a life you never managed to save in the first place.



Ryan said:


> Heck, who knows, maybe the extra publicity on the story because of the picture being published help lead to the killer being caught?


I guess I missed the photo Mr. Abbasi took of the perpetrator who pushed Mr. Ki Suk Han onto the tracks and then sold to the NY Post. What a brave man Mr. Abbasi was to go out on a limb and risk his own life through retribution in order to bring a dangerous killer to justice.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 6, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Texas Sunset said:
> ...


Your post would be a lot easier to deal with if you dropped the sarcasm and hyperbole. In *my* experience, taking such a shot isn't that hard if you're carrying around a DSLR and it's properly set up for your surroundings.



Texas Sunset said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I can't say I would have the presence of mind to do much of anything if I were in the same situation (which is why I asked questions about how to avoid getting injured if you end up on the tracks upthread), but if I end up with a picture of a newsworthy event such as that one, I don't see where it's immoral to make it available. It's an absolutely tragic picture knowing what's about to happen, but I'm not sure why you're railing against it being published.
> ...


Who said anything about being a hero or hime trying to take credit for saving a life? He took a picture that someone found compelling enough to pay for, nothing more.



Texas Sunset said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Heck, who knows, *maybe the extra publicity on the story because of the picture being published* help lead to the killer being caught?
> ...


I never said that he took a photo of the perp. Try reading my post again.


----------



## photg1985 (Dec 6, 2012)

Ryan said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > Ryan said:
> ...


Plus photoshop. To pretend that this photo was cropped or adjusted after the fact but before publication is crazy. He took multiple, multiple pics. The post took the best one and cropped it or altered it to make it look good for the cover. To use that, without the original, as an indictment on the man's psyche is over doing it.


----------



## photg1985 (Dec 6, 2012)

That is supposed to be wasn't cropped or adjusted


----------



## Ryan (Dec 6, 2012)

Indeed - walking around with my D700 set on Continuous - High I'll get 5 FPS. One of them HAS to come out!


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 6, 2012)

Ryan said:


> In *my* experience, taking such a shot isn't that hard if you're carrying around a DSLR and it's properly set up for your surroundings.


Not hard at all. Hard is making the call where you sell the photos of a soon-to-be-dead subject to a tabloid before they're even buried. Professional photographers have used powerful imagery of all kinds of horrific events as part of a pro-transparency lifestyle that puts them in harms way and rewards them with exceptionally high rates of death and suicide. Is that what this guy did? Not even close. Mr. Abbasi is apparently just some random guy who saw a chance to parlay a horrific event into some sort of aspiring paparazzi payoff and received more than he bargained for in return. Kind of like all those Twilight Zone parables about being careful what you wish for lest you actually realize it. Instead of sucking it up and accepting responsibility for his actions (or lack thereof) he just pleads for more compassion and understanding. Not for the actual victim but for himself. Truly pathetic.



photg1985 said:


> To pretend that this photo was cropped or adjusted after the fact but before publication is crazy.


No, pushing a man off a platform to his sudden and horrific death is crazy. I'm merely pointing out what I see as a rather immoral man pretending to be some sort of clueless bystander who just barely missed becoming a hero after his illogical scheme to prevent harm by photographing it failed to have the (supposedly) desired impact.



photg1985 said:


> He took multiple, multiple pics. The post took the best one and cropped it or altered it to make it look good for the cover. To use that, without the original, as an indictment on the man's psyche is over doing it.


How exactly would Mr. Abbasi's actions have differed if he was simply trying to capture the event for profit and fame and didn't care one bit if the train stopped? Would anything have changed at all? How much time would have to pass before you'd start wondering if Mr. Abbassi really didn't have time to do anything but take photos? Cameras are a lot like computers, insomuch as they can achieve great things when used with precision. Otherwise it's garbage in, garbage out. Photoshop has many amazing features, but it's no miracle worker. If I just randomly operate my camera's flash as some sort of quick-thinking warning device to a subway operator without steadying my camera and focusing, as the photographer supposedly did, then any photos which just happen to result will still look like fuzzy useless crap when Photoshop gets done with them. Somewhere deep down you must realize this, but I guess it's easier to just pretend Photoshop can somehow rewrite history.


----------



## Ryan (Dec 6, 2012)

So you take this picture.

Word gets out that you have it, and people call you and offer you money for the picture.

And you're going to claim that the correct response is "Sorry, no. I won't take your money for this, but I'll give it to you for free since I wasn't in any danger when I took it."

Riiiiiiight.

No, I'm not buying the "tried to warn the train" story. But if he wasn't in a position to help, I can't fault him for taking the picture and I can't fault him for accepting money for it.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 6, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I know that it's hard for you to accept logic and that you love to try to find the obscure and ridiculous in anything; but when the man stands up on live TV and announces that he was hoping to attract the attention of the train operator with the flash; then yes I'm sure that's what he was thinking.
> ...


It's impossible to dispute a point that's only purpose is to disagree.



Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Now, is it possible that he only thought of that after the fact? Sure! But regardless of whether he thought of that as a cover story or if he really was thinking of it at the time of the incident, I *am sure that he thought of it!* He told us so on live TV!
> ...


It is in the context that I used the words "I'm sure". Yes, in your world that's not good enough, I understand. Sorry!



Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Texas Sunset said:
> ...


Look, I'm not saying that waving one's arms might not help. But if we're playing the odds game here on that platform, which I've been on many times unlike you, there is maybe a 40% to 50% chance that waving one's arms is going to alert the operator to a problem. Those number go down the further you are from the end of the platform where the train is entering from and the more crowded the platform is with people.

With a flash light, or a flashing light like from a camera, the odds increase to around 90% that you are going to attract the attention of the operator.

So if you're standing on the platform with nothing on you, then fine start waving your arms wildly as you run down the platform towards the oncoming train. But if you have a camera, then start taking pictures with flash as fast as possible.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 6, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > I've personally seen TO's move their hand to hover over the mushroom simple because someone took a flash photo of a train entering the station. A few even backed off on the power just in case.
> ...


To bad you can't ever have a conversation where you don't try to pick apart everything for absolutely no reason!



Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Yes, it is possible that the flashes made things worse for the already confused victim. No one will ever know in this case.
> ...


Non sequitur! The best way to save Mr. Han's life is to stop that train! Not put your own life in danger or worry about whether or not a flash might distract an already panicked person who is probably operating on so much adrenaline that no flash would ever matter.



Texas Sunset said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Texas Sunset said:
> ...


I'm having no difficulties at all. You just don't seem to wish to accept the fact that you don't know what you're talking about in this case.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 6, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Texas Sunset said:
> ...


Again, you're speaking without local knowledge of the situation. Yes, there are still some "poorly lit" subway stations, although most have been fixed over the years. The 49th Street Station where this accident happened, is a decently lit subway station. And as the guest Photog noted, the cropping would have been done by the paper, not the photographer.

Again, I could probably have shot that same shot with my iPhone and with a little gussying up by the paper's graphic's team it would have looked just as good.



Texas Sunset said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > I can't say I would have the presence of mind to do much of anything if I were in the same situation (which is why I asked questions about how to avoid getting injured if you end up on the tracks upthread), but if I end up with a picture of a newsworthy event such as that one, I don't see where it's immoral to make it available. It's an absolutely tragic picture knowing what's about to happen, but I'm not sure why you're railing against it being published.
> ...


Maybe you didn't notice, but he's not taking credit for a life! He took credit for trying to save that life and he took a picture. But he didn't take credit for anyone's life!



Texas Sunset said:


> Ryan said:
> 
> 
> > Heck, who knows, maybe the extra publicity on the story because of the picture being published help lead to the killer being caught?
> ...


Yes, apparently because you're speaking from Texas, you did miss that. To my knowledge, from the reports that I've seen, several people including Mr. Abbasi turned over photos & even a video both to the police and to newpapers/news stations.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 6, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> photg1985 said:
> 
> 
> > To pretend that this photo was cropped or adjusted after the fact but before publication is crazy.
> ...


His scheme was only illogical to you. Once again, *THE BEST WAY TO ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF A SUBWAY TRAIN'S MOTORMAN IS TO FLASH A LIGHT.*


----------



## fairviewroad (Dec 7, 2012)

I think it's time someone pushed this entire thread in front of a moving train. :blush:


----------



## Ryan (Dec 7, 2012)

Only if I'm allowed to take a picture of it afterwards.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 7, 2012)

Ryan said:


> So you take this picture. Word gets out that you have it, and people call you and offer you money for the picture. And you're going to claim that the correct response is "Sorry, no. I won't take your money for this, but I'll give it to you for free since I wasn't in any danger when I took it." Riiiiiiight.


I would never give anything to nor assist any Rupert Murdoch tabloid with _anything_, including this.



Ryan said:


> No, I'm not buying the "tried to warn the train" story.


That’s really all I needed to hear myself. 



AlanB said:


> It's impossible to dispute a point that's only purpose is to disagree. [Too] bad you can't ever have a conversation where you don't try to pick apart everything for absolutely no reason!


The feeling is mutual?


----------



## TimePeace (Dec 7, 2012)

Texas you lost all credibility when you posted the photo that you are so harshly critical of. It is nice to have you on ignore.

It is clear that you do not know nearly as much as you think you do and you prove that again and again.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 8, 2012)

Maine Rider said:


> Texas you lost all credibility when you posted the photo that you are so harshly critical of. It is nice to have you on ignore. It is clear that you do not know nearly as much as you think you do and you prove that again and again.


Your ignore setting appears to be broken. Or maybe you just don't understand the intended purpose. Or perhaps you just can't help reading my posts anyway. Whatever the case, so be it. I may disagree with Alan on nearly everything, but at least he's able to articulate his positions and explain his conclusions. Readers are free to choose his positions over mine if they think they make more sense or were worded nicer or whatever. They're also free to come up with their own conclusions and variations as they see fit. As for your position specifically, it honestly makes no difference to me what you think since you can't even be bothered to present a countervailing theory before running away with your fingers stuck in your ears.


----------



## PVDtoGO (Dec 9, 2012)

Please stop


----------



## Blackwolf (Dec 28, 2012)

It's happened again. Another seemingly homeless mentally disturbed individual is the culprit again too.

*Man Pushed Beneath NYC Subway*


----------



## AlanB (Dec 28, 2012)

They don't yet know if the women who did the pushing is homeless or not. In fact, at present they know very little about her.

The #7 is my home line, so I know it very well and in fact have gotten off at the 40th Street/Lowery stop many times to shop in the area and visit friends near that stop.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Dec 28, 2012)

Hopefully no photo for people to go berzerk about this time.


----------



## cpamtfan (Dec 29, 2012)

I was at the station tonight. The usual, "They should put up gates!" debate returned yet again. I swear these are the same people who complain about their taxes being too high. Just get your faces out of your electronic devices and use your brains instead of bubblewrapping the world.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 29, 2012)

Hah, NBC News channel 4 interviewed a guy who said that they should slow down the trains to 15 MPH as they enter the station so that they could stop in time. Clearly he has no clue about physics, since anything over about 2 MPH would still mean certain death if pushed at the last minute. And entering any station at that speed would essentially cut the subway systems capacity by at least 2/3rds, if not more.

On a related note, the Second Avenue subway was supposed to have barriers both for safety and to keep air conditioning on the platforms, but that got cut to keep down the costs.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Dec 29, 2012)

I read on here about a group in California that wanted caltrain to run at no faster then 5MPH for the whole route to prevent teen suicides.


----------



## Amtrak Cajun (Dec 29, 2012)

This is just sad. My heart goes out to everyone involved, the victims, and their families.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 29, 2012)

WhoozOn1st said:


> Hopefully no photo for people to go berzerk about this time.


Do you really want to start this discussion all over again?

1. Taking photos of grisly murder victim *=* so be it.

2. Selling photos of grisly murder victim *=* sad but expected.

3. Selling photos of grisly murder victim followed by claiming you were trying to help save a life by taking photos of the carnage *=* ***?!

4. It didn't save the life in question. It had no reasonable expectation of saving said life. If it ever does save a life feel free to let me know.

5. Anything else you'd like to dig up while you're at it?


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Dec 29, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> > Hopefully no photo for people to go berzerk about this time.
> ...


Then again there are those who require only the drop of a hat to go berzerk. <_<


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 29, 2012)

WhoozOn1st said:


> Then again there are those who require only the drop of a hat to go berzerk.


Oh, you're just here to *troll *yet another thread with your trademark snark and cacography? Got it.


----------



## amtrakwolverine (Dec 30, 2012)

EDIT Wrong subway


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 30, 2012)

amtrakwolverine said:


> They arrested the woman who pushed the man onto the tracks.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That should probably be made into a separate thread since it's another event entirely separate from the murder-by-subway originally described in this thread.


----------



## AlanB (Dec 30, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> > Then again there are those who require only the drop of a hat to go berzerk.
> ...


He originally just made a simple statement about the photo and the controversy in general over that photo; not just on here but in the media.

Only you seemed to take it personally and felt the need to try to justify your original statements once again.


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Dec 30, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> WhoozOn1st said:
> 
> 
> > Then again there are those who require only the drop of a hat to go berzerk.
> ...


"Cacography: 1. bad handwriting; poor penmanship (opposed to _calligraphy_). 2. incorrect spelling (opposed to _orthography_)"

Relevant or applicable because... ?


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Dec 30, 2012)

WhoozOn1st said:


> Texas Sunset said:
> 
> 
> > WhoozOn1st said:
> ...


Does that mean you don't dispute the reference to trolling?  :blink:

Even if you're going to troll you can still be professional about it.  :lol:


----------



## WhoozOn1st (Dec 30, 2012)

I won't engage in a war of wits with an unarmed man.


----------



## AmtrakBlue (Dec 30, 2012)

Texas Sunset said:


> amtrakwolverine said:
> 
> 
> > They arrested the woman who pushed the man onto the tracks.
> ...


Why? Someone else already mentioned this new one and you didn't tell them to start a new thread.


----------

