Riot stopper


PDA






Oleg Volk
August 1, 2007, 01:19 AM
http://olegvolk.net/gallery/d/21430-2/riots5293.jpg

If you enjoyed reading about "Riot stopper" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
sm
August 1, 2007, 01:22 AM
That will work just fine and dandy!

PTK
August 1, 2007, 01:40 AM
It seems almost too wordy but I don't see what could be removed. It's a good poster nonetheless!

hso
August 1, 2007, 01:41 AM
While you or I would be wearing electronic muffs in such a situation I don't think the undecideds will understand and be distracted by them.

Oleg Volk
August 1, 2007, 01:44 AM
I have versions with and without the muffs. This one seemed the best image overall.

Wordy? Yes, but also exact, I hope.

Euclidean
August 1, 2007, 01:46 AM
Very nicely done sir.

iiibdsiil
August 1, 2007, 01:46 AM
I'd like to see "the police" instead of "cops", but I know you are fighting for space.

Oleg Volk
August 1, 2007, 01:47 AM
Exactly!

Nematocyst
August 1, 2007, 01:49 AM
The image is compelling and the words are fine.

I'm curious though: why the muffs?

Even though I wear similar ones at the range,
(unless those are electronic)
I've wondered if I would put them on in such a situation.

Seems like they'd retard one's ability to hear breaking and entering
in another part of the house, let alone a stealthy invader.

No?

Nem

Oleg Volk
August 1, 2007, 01:55 AM
Muffs:
1) Protect your hearing: firing that 5.56 rifle would hammer your ears!
2) Improve your hearing substantially with the amplification

Harry Paget Flashman
August 1, 2007, 01:57 AM
Nice art work. But how about a poster with a young mother at the back door of her rental home carrying an extra 20 lbs or so from recent childbirth and some kind of firearm she can actually afford? It may not be a real popular poster but it would be one that many people could identify with. It may sway some of the "(sigh)...Hey, I wish that was me" crowd to the "Hey, that could be me" one.

Nematocyst
August 1, 2007, 01:59 AM
2) Improve your hearing substantially with the amplificationAh, so they are electronic. OK, I get it. Yeah, makes good sense.

I'm just now beginning to explore electronic muffs. Still stuck in the stone age with the older ones. Will upgrade soon.

Speaking of electronic muffs, here's a timely new thread (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=291542).

Oleg Volk
August 1, 2007, 02:06 AM
But how about a poster with a young mother at the back door of her rental home carrying an extra 20 lbs or so from recent childbirth

And that one is also in the works. Will have one with a 20ga pump or an SKS.

Harry Paget Flashman
August 1, 2007, 02:09 AM
Thanks for the response. :)

ArfinGreebly
August 1, 2007, 02:36 AM
For some reason the tan/beige tone on that rifle reduces the "harsh factor" of an all-black.

I Like it.

Oleg Volk
August 1, 2007, 03:27 AM
Beige camouflages the gun against the beige walls :D

rdaines
August 1, 2007, 08:24 AM
Great image, very real. A+

XavierBreath
August 1, 2007, 09:10 AM
I do not like the standing in front of a glass window peeping out the blinds. That' and the muffs don't get it for me. A night scene would be better as well.

Of course, a tactically sound sneak and peek in a real world type scenerio would be too scary to the fence sitters we try to convince.......

As usual the photography, colors and such are excellent Oleg. I sometimes wonder, from working with photographers in the past, if you formulate a concept and then shoot film, or if you shoot film and then formulate a concept to fit. This poster appears to be the later, and I think that is why it bothers me. Too many small inconsistencies like muffs, daylight, unsound tactics.

30 cal slob
August 1, 2007, 09:38 AM
what, no aimpoint?

:eek:

:neener:

very nice, oleg!

pax
August 1, 2007, 10:49 AM
Xavier ~

During both the situations the poster refers to, looters and rioters were blatantly doing their thing in broad daylight. It's a very, very dangerous fallacy to believe that such events are only dangerous during hours of darkness.

The muffs don't distract me at all and I think most folks probably would stand just about the way she's standing. She's not an uber-tactical ninja type, just a regular woman wanting to protect her family and worried about what's going on out the window.

As usual, nice work Oleg!

pax

Dave P
August 1, 2007, 11:01 AM
What, no safety glasses??

nicademus
August 1, 2007, 11:12 AM
You could also note that the police have no responsibility to protect you

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/kasler-protection.html

Did a report on school on this case were the police did not have a duty to respond to the 911 call.

keep them coming

XavierBreath
August 1, 2007, 11:13 AM
She's not an uber-tactical ninja type, just a regular woman wanting to protect her family and worried about what's going on out the window.Just a regular woman with a uber-tactical ninja type squirrel rifle, right? Or does a uber-tactical ninja type rifle mean you do not need tactics?

During both the situations the poster refers to, looters and rioters were blatantly doing their thing in broad daylight. It's a very, very dangerous fallacy to believe that such events are only dangerous during hours of darkness.Bad things also happen at night, and in both situations mentioned bad things happened a lot a night. For the message of the photograph, to a fence sitter, a night scene would read better, I believe. It would be graphically stronger, giving more contrast in the composition, and it would be a more universal image of fear and dread. It would certainly read as less paranoia than a brightly lit daylight scene. If you think I believe bad things only happen at night, you are mistaken Pax.

Sorry to offend, just trying to give constructive criticism rather than blind adulation.

telkontar
August 1, 2007, 11:32 AM
Consider shortening the introductory paragraph:

"Los Angeles -- 1992
Hurricane Katrina -- 2005

During riots, police cannot protect everyone."

You may want to shorten the conclusion, too: "Who protects yours?"


Not all emergences are "urban" or involve "massive" unrest. Even the term "riot" may be too limiting, but "disorder" or "disturbance" or "unrest" don't quite work. I would suggest spelling out "cannot" -- it helps emphasize what the authorities canNOT do. (Wording is always subjective, of course.)

armoredman
August 1, 2007, 11:37 AM
I like it.

pax
August 1, 2007, 11:38 AM
Just a regular woman with a uber-tactical ninja type squirrel rifle, right? Or does a uber-tactical ninja type rifle mean you do not need tactics?

Okay, let's take a poll: how many guys here own an AR?

How many of these guys who own an AR have taken an Urban Rifle or Defensive Carbine course -- not simply a "shooting" class but a class which teaches defensive rifle tactics?

How many of these guys who own an AR have wives who've taken Urban Rifle or Defensive Carbine?

Sorry to offend, just trying to give constructive criticism rather than blind adulation.

Sure, because of course what I was doing was simply stupid, blind adulation. :rolleyes:

Wasn't offended by disagreement (that's how things improve after all, and if two people agree on everything one of them is unnecessary).

But I might be a tad irritated at your closing line, which was rather rude since it implies that anyone who disagrees with you is a blind fool.

pax

junyo
August 1, 2007, 12:07 PM
Isn't "riot stopper" a bit... ambitious? I don't recall any of the various people on roofs with weapons actually stopping the riots, so much as changing the riot's direction or target. And unless you've got something beltfed and plenty of ammo, you're still at at distinct disadvantage against any decent sized mob, just less of a disadvantage than without a weapon. So "standing between her family and the mob" would kinda be the last ditch, all other options exhausted, course of action. So (IMHO) a slightly greater sense of urgency would give it better context. A burning car or two Photoshop'd in beyond the window, or smoke/flame reflections, the room not brightly lit (and backlighting our anxious homeowner), crying kids in the corner, a now useless cellphone tossed on the floor. And lose the muffs.

I think you lose the point when it appears to be a Mom coldly deciding to face a mob with other options available, as opposed to a Mom having that choice thrust upon her and chosing action over passivity.

roo_ster
August 1, 2007, 12:20 PM
Oleg:

I likely.

pax:

How 'bout guys who have had training (courtesy of Uncle Sam) but don't own an AR15?

--

As much as it pains me to admit it, the AR15 is a terrific weapon for some circumstances & users.

For instance...my 5-foot-nuthin' wife, who likes low-recoil and light weight in her long arms. When I eventually buy an AR15, I will ensure she has the "tactical" telescoping buttstock, so she can get the correct LOP.

Showing a gal/mom/wife/etc with an AR15 as their HD weapon implies they know to choose the right tool for them for the job at hand, not that they are GI Jane.

--

Also, I would reiterate that mobs are not phased by the presence of daylight, especially if they have already scared off the local LEOs.

Sistema1927
August 1, 2007, 12:20 PM
I don't remember any riots in New Orleans in 2005.

Lots of devastation from Katrina, lots of confusion and some roving bad guys, but no riots.

One of the most surreal things that I have ever personally witnessed was members of the 82nd Airborne patrolling down by the Superdome in an otherwise deserted city.

Kentak
August 1, 2007, 01:36 PM
Maybe "cops won't" instead of "cops can't."

Legionnaire
August 1, 2007, 01:38 PM
I like it, including the muffs. Look like Tac-7s. They also look (to me) like they are on backwards. Don't you wear them with the microphones pointing forward? Great image, though.

The Deer Hunter
August 1, 2007, 01:50 PM
Beige camouflages the gun against the beige walls :D

Its gun grabber camo ;)

Chipperman
August 1, 2007, 01:52 PM
Don't you wear them with the microphones pointing forward?

Shooters will often wear them backwards so they can hear range commands more clealy. In a threat situation, though, I agree with you.

ArfinGreebly
August 1, 2007, 02:21 PM
Isn't "riot stopper" a bit... ambitious? I don't recall any of the various people on roofs with weapons actually stopping the riots, so much as changing the riot's direction or target.
Technically, redirecting isn't stopping, but if firefighters re-vector a forest fire and it doesn't burn down your house, from where you stand they "stopped" the fire from getting to you.

I'm okay with "stopped" in this context.

I think you lose the point when it appears to be a Mom coldly deciding to face a mob with other options available, as opposed to a Mom having that choice thrust upon her and choosing action over passivity.
Assumes much. While its possible, as you suggest, to stage it more explicitly, but my first impression seeing this is that mom has kids somewhere away from the windows and she's making sure nothing's headed her way.

One problem with explicit staging is that it makes the picture "busy" and requires more "gaze time" to get it. Many folks have a low "gaze time" threshold and you'll lose them if they have to spend any time on it.

I'd leave this photo pretty much as is.

There's room for a more "darkness" oriented picture, too.

Heavy Metal Hero
August 1, 2007, 02:27 PM
I think the most important question is whether or not she is wearing shoes.

Standing Wolf
August 1, 2007, 03:51 PM
Peek out through the blinds?

I believe I'd step right out in plain view to let the criminals know it's time to hop back on their tricycles and leave the neighborhood.

Oleg Volk
August 1, 2007, 03:53 PM
Standing Wolf,

What would you recommend for a better communication of the same idea?

indie
August 1, 2007, 04:00 PM
i have a couple of issues with it

1. the earmuffs as other have mentioned. I think it distracts the viewer who isnt already a person knowledgeable about guns from the purpose of the image.

2. It doesnt seem like a situation of distress. The setting is too comfortable and she is overdressed and kempt. It just doesnt appear from the image that she is defending her home in a civil unrest situation. It just looks like she is modeling the gun. you could easilly replace the gun with a windex bottle and it will look like shes listening to her music while cleaning the windows. I just think the image should say what needs to be said in itself. And the words should just be to drive the point home for those who cant take it in visually.

indie
August 1, 2007, 04:03 PM
i dont have a problem with her peeking through the blinds...but

i just the image as a whole doesnt say "im defending myself in a desparate situation" like this classic image.

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/Graphics/Track16/by_any_means.gif

Nolo
August 1, 2007, 04:05 PM
Standing menacingly on the front porch.
And she'd have to be a bodybuilder with bandoliers of ammunition slung across her chest.
Kind of a female Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Oh, and she'd have to be very scantily clad. Think Baywatch.

I'm kidding, of course.

But really, I think that the picture doesn't communicate the gravity of the situation. The picture's lighting is wrong (to me at least), and, though real, doesn't make it plain to the audience that she is fighting for her family and her life. Darken the lighting, make it seem like light is coming through the window(s). I know it's not as realistic as we'd all like, but neither are the people we're trying to communicate the message to. Also, drop the earmuffs. I'd wear them too, but they're distracting to the point. Contrast is a great way to communicate seriousness, so use it.

Just some constructive criticism from one artist to another. Good work, again, though, Oleg.

indie
August 1, 2007, 04:09 PM
i noticed even the fact that she is standing casually and directly in front of the window could play a part.

if she was standing to the side of the window, inconspicuously leaning and peeking out instead of directly in front of it casually looking out

her body language and postitioning just doesnt say "defensive" to me.

Oleg Volk
August 1, 2007, 04:29 PM
Indie,

My photo was designed to mimic the one you posted!

Looking through all available photos, looks like I'll have to re-shoot.

indie
August 1, 2007, 04:35 PM
I thought so Oleg.

I just think the body language and the other distractions such the earphones, the lighting, the perfect hair, the bright blue shirt, and it just appears that she is delicately lifting the blinds. It just doesnt seem like she is expecting to see anything hostile beyond that window, or it doesnt appear that there would be anything hostile on the other side of the window.

I think its a great idea. I just think the picture without any words communicates any outside threat like the Malcolm X shot.

Oleg Volk
August 1, 2007, 04:51 PM
Thanks all for the input. Will update the image as I get new photos.

revjen45
August 1, 2007, 04:52 PM
During the Greater Los Angeles County Inter-ethnic Spring Festival of 1992 (we lived in Long Beach at the time) I seem to recall that some Korean-American businessman defended their property by force of arms, and those who did were not burned out by the rampaging sub-humans (term based on conduct, not race or ethnicity). Arson, assault, and looting went down in broad daylight, and the lady in the picture would be a lot safer than the groveling enuretics who depended on the government to save them.

Houston Tom
August 1, 2007, 05:28 PM
I like it and the real beauty is that rifle would go with almost any shoe color that would go with the blouse

MKEITH
August 1, 2007, 07:30 PM
I like it as is, but my wife suggested pulling her hair back in a pony tail.

XavierBreath
August 1, 2007, 07:44 PM
Pax,
I am finally back on.......

It does not take an "Urban Rifle or Defensive Carbine" course to come to the realization that it is foolhardy to stand in front of a window and peek through the blinds. All it takes is the fear of getting shot. This is not super duper stealth stuff. This is common sense when you have the fear of being shot with no chance of EMS to save your life.

I said neither stupid nor fool. Those are your words. I said blind adulation. Please do not try to make my words mean something they do not.

ad∑u∑late
–verb (used with object), -lat∑ed, -lat∑ing. to show excessive admiration or devotion to; flatter or admire servilely.

As a writer, you know the value of constructive criticism, I am sure.

Sure, because of course what I was doing was simply stupid, blind adulation. I did not infer that you were providing blind adulation. I admire Oleg's work greatly. I was stating that I, myself, could give constructive criticism or blind adulation. I prefer to give constructive criticism. Again, please do not try to make my words mean something they do not.

Ned Flangers
August 1, 2007, 07:52 PM
I'm not too hip on the word "mob". Makes me think of Goodfellas or that Soprano crap. How about just "Rioters"?

Ned Flangers
August 1, 2007, 07:57 PM
And, I would probably ditch the muffs and go for a little more profile on the face. You can't really see an upset expression.

Hypnogator
August 1, 2007, 08:56 PM
If you wanted to be more historically accurate in your depiction, you should take a picture of a young oriental guy (or gal) with an M-1 Carbine, perhaps in front of a Korean grocery store.

Agree, you need to ditch the ear protection (doubt you'd reach for that in a life-threatening emergency) and have her posed beside the window, back to wall, weapon pointed up, peering around the corner of the window.

Oleg Volk
August 1, 2007, 09:16 PM
I have just the photos for the Korean (OK, half-Japanese) angle.

Nematocyst
August 2, 2007, 04:57 AM
Ah, we have advanced since I last looked in here.

Still thinking about moving to AK.

Do people in Fairbanks peek through blinds?

kd7nqb
August 2, 2007, 05:09 AM
I Like it, nobody who is not a gunny will notice that the muffs are electronic.

Nematocyst
August 2, 2007, 05:46 AM
Or said differently,
gunnies will note that
the muffs are electronic.

Legionnaire
August 2, 2007, 07:49 AM
If you're going to reshoot, I suggest opening the blinds slightly so they can be peered through without touching them. Might also have a darker room; this seems unnaturally light. Ideal would be some kind of red glow that would suggest a burning car out front.

Nematocyst
August 2, 2007, 08:02 AM
... red glow that would suggest a burning car out front ... Excellent suggestion.

Less burbs,
more burn.

Titan6
August 2, 2007, 08:33 AM
Is good. Might want to stick some kids in one. It is for the children after all....

JamisJockey
August 2, 2007, 09:19 AM
Ditch the muffs
Its wordy, but I for one can't think of a better way to put it.
Overall, damn nice work, yet again Oleg :D

does not take an "Urban Rifle or Defensive Carbine" course to come to the realization that it is foolhardy to stand in front of a window and peek through the blinds. All it takes is the fear of getting shot. This is not super
It's also foolhardy to take tactical lessons from illustrative photographs. The picture would have alot less impact if posed another way.

XavierBreath
August 2, 2007, 09:29 AM
The picture would have alot less impact if posed another way.Perhaps, but compare it to the photo of Malcom X, which was posed another way, and inspired this shot........Or was the photo of Malcom X posed at all? This is all the info I could find on this photo.
On March 20, 1964, Life published a photograph of Malcolm holding an M1 Carbine and pulling back the curtains to peer out of the window of his family's home. The photo was taken in connection with Malcolm's declaration that he would defend himself from the daily death threats which he and his family were receiving. Undercover FBI informants warned officials that he had been marked for assassination.

http://www3.iath.virginia.edu/sixties/Graphics/Track16/by_any_means.gif

JamisJockey
August 2, 2007, 09:54 AM
It's a good pic, but to the semi-educated I think they make the same point.

Nematocyst
August 2, 2007, 04:38 PM
The more I think about this, Oleg, and read the feedback, the more I see a potential for at least two versions of this poster with the same model, dressed differently in each, but with essentially the same words.

I can see the existing one speaking to a soccer mom (and/or dad) in suburbia.

I can see a similar one with her dressed differently - less middle class, more poor - in an apartment that is clearly not in the burbs, but in inner city, perhaps as revealed by the walls and window design, and the sliver of view out the blinds, perhaps with her closer to the edge of the window, like the guy in the image in post 60.

There's at least a third one, I suspect, too.

Dunno, just thinking out loud ...

northerner
August 25, 2007, 12:59 PM
All Right, Cute Photo. To me itís just a clever marketing ploy by manufacturers to promote AR15s to women. Why the muffs? Because its an accessory like matching purse and shoes, Come on now, when something goes bump in the night do you first reach for your muffs, to protect your hearing, or your weapon to protect your life?

Why is she by the window? Is she going to deploy her weapon by breaking the glass with the butt and engaging the looters at 100-200 meters as they march up Primrose Lane? She should be in a safe room or safe defendable position with a weapon pointed in the direction of the attackers. If that's the case then a shotgun would be a much more effective weapon than a rifle. Of course though we arenít selling shotguns here but AR15s, right?

Oleg Volk
August 25, 2007, 01:04 PM
My guess is that she's looking out of the window to see what's happening outside...

Another version (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=297000)

If you enjoyed reading about "Riot stopper" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!