Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera.

[CountGlockula]

Sorry to add more to the tragedy (if dupe please delete), but thought this would be interesting:

Link.

The photo:

Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back

Jerome Taylor talks to the photographer whose picture went around the world

Saturday, 29 November 2008

Sebastian D'Souza
A gunman walks at the Chatrapathi Sivaji Terminal railway station in Mumbai, India, Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2008. Teams of gunmen stormed luxury hotels, a popular restaurant, hospitals and a crowded train station in coordinated attacks across India's financial capital, killing people, taking Westerners hostage and leaving parts of the city under siege Thursday, police said. A group of suspected Muslim militants claimed responsibility. AP

It is the photograph that has dominated the world's front pages, casting an astonishing light on the fresh-faced killers who brought terror to the heart of India's most vibrant city. Now it can be revealed how the astonishing picture came to be taken by a newspaper photographer who hid inside a train carriage as gunfire erupted all around him.

Sebastian D'Souza, a picture editor at the Mumbai Mirror, whose offices are just opposite the city's Chhatrapati Shivaji station, heard the gunfire erupt and ran towards the terminus. "I ran into the first carriage of one of the trains on the platform to try and get a shot but couldn't get a good angle, so I moved to the second carriage and waited for the gunmen to walk by," he said. "They were shooting from waist height and fired at anything that moved. I briefly had time to take a couple of frames using a telephoto lens. I think they saw me taking photographs but theydidn't seem to care."

The gunmen were terrifyingly professional, making sure at least one of them was able to fire their rifle while the other reloaded. By the time he managed to capture the killer on camera, Mr D'Souza had already seen two gunmen calmly stroll across the station concourse shooting both civilians and policemen, many of whom, he said, were armed but did not fire back. "I first saw the gunmen outside the station," Mr D'Souza said. "With their rucksacks and Western clothes they looked like backpackers, not terrorists, but they were very heavily armed and clearly knew how to use their rifles.

"Towards the station entrance, there are a number of bookshops and one of the bookstore owners was trying to close his shop," he recalled. "The gunmen opened fire and the shopkeeper fell down."

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."

As the gunmen fired at policemen taking cover across the street, Mr D'Souza realised a train was pulling into the station unaware of the horror within. "I couldn't believe it. We rushed to the platform and told everyone to head towards the back of the station. Those who were older and couldn't run, we told them to stay put."

The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

Just a taste of the confusion and how helpless everyone were, but this photographer was pretty bold.

 

[karz10]

wow, what a story, unbelievable...

 

[jakemccoy]

The photographer said that armed police would not fire back and that he wish he had a gun. Apparently, the photographer would have shot back, but he's still alive right now! If it were me, I wouldn't press my luck. I wouldn't have hero fantasies. I'd be happy to be alive.

The proper response to this attack is tougher than it seems at first glance. There are no totally clear answers because the terrorists and the innocent civilians were in close proximity.

Perhaps the police figured that using a pistol to shoot at guys with automatic AKs was futile; perhaps the cops didn't have clear shots; or perhaps they weren't 100% sure who were the terrorists. I'd like to hear the cops' perspectives. I started a thread about the confusion here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=409621

Reports indicate that the terrorists had no sense of politically correct rules of engagement. We can sit back and analyze it now. However, the situation was developing and fluid at the time. Imagine the public outcry if the cops accidentally shot a dozen or so innocent civilians. Any type of positive action by the police would have been for naught.

 

[sturmgewehr]

I'm not sure what the Indian Police were thinking, but I know with absolute certainty that our Police would have fired back.

Their culture is different than ours. Heck, not only would the Police have been shooting these a-holes, 1/3 of the population here in Indiana would have been shooting at them too.

 

[sturmgewehr]

Perhaps rightful shooters got guns somehow. Reports indicate that the terrorists had no sense of politically correct rules of engagement. Who knew their tactics at the time?

I think it's kind of obvious.

Let's see... men armed with AK-47's and lobing grenades vs. any legally armed citizens. One is shooting innocent passengers and the other is shooting at the men armed with AK's and lobing grenades. Which one is in the wrong and which one is in the right?

Since concealed weapons aren't legal in India and Police don't carry AK's and shoot at train passengers willy-nilly... it's safe to assume those who are shooting at passengers and carrying AK's are likely the bad guys.

 

[jakemccoy]

It's obvious now while we're safe and warm, listening to classical music, typing away, sharing knowledge. This report documents one out of thousands of perspectives. I'm sure there are other scenes where the terrorists were not so obvious. The only distinction may have been behavior, which is also hindsight.

 

[jakemccoy]

On CNN, there was a reporter (Sara Sidner) who nearly got attacked by innocent civilians on the street while she was trying to report. These civilians appeared to be upset with the reporter. It got to the point that the camera light went out. Everything went black. There was some yelling and pushing, and then the coverage went out. Here's the video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/11/28/mumbai-chaos-caught-on-cn_n_146980.html

Anyway, the terrorists would have shot at the light and civilians for sure.

 

[ByAnyMeans]

I wish the reporter would have had a gun as well. Maybe the cops were unable to identify the terrorsits and did'nt have a good shot. This journalist sure did and appears to have had the guts to use it. What is obvious to some is not to others and that may have been the case but we will never know.

 

[mio]

somebody correct me if im wrong but it seems to me that in india a) most of the population is disarmed and b) firearms arent standard issue for cops dont they carry some kind of fighting stick?

if these two things are correct then its quite possible the cops were in as much shock and fear as the civilians and simply took to cover as a result of that and lack of training to face an armed enemy

 

[Blakenzy]

I think that "herd control" and civil suppression is what Indian cops are trained to do, fighting armed BGs with rifles is beyond their scope of duty...

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Part of the reason the journalist is alive is because he didn't have a gun. Yes, as he notes, the terrorists saw him shooting photographs of them and they didn't shoot him. Why? Because they wanted as much of the event documented as possible. The journalist was undoubtedly spared because 1) he wasn't a threat, and 2) his work would be beneficial to the cause through his documentation.

On CNN, there was a reporter (Sara Sidner) who nearly got attacked by innocent civilians on the street while she was trying to report. These civilians appeared to be upset with the reporter. It got to the point that the camera light went out. Everything went black. There was some yelling and pushing, and then the coverage went out. Here's the video:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/1..._n_146980.html

Anyway, the terrorists would have shot at the light and civilians for sure.

I am not sure how you can be attacked by "innocent civilians." She and her crew had a run-in, basically, with an apparently stressed out and apparently somewhat drunken mob who demanded to know what and why she was reporting.

No, the terrorists would not have shot the lights and civilians for sure had the civilians not outed the lights. There wasn't a terrorist threat there in that this was in an area considered safe to be reoccupied by the populace.

 

[misANTHrope]

I think that "herd control" and civil suppression is what Indian cops are trained to do, fighting armed BGs with rifles is beyond their scope of duty...

It may have been beyond the scope of their training, but I don't think it was beyond the scope of their duty.

My $.02.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Glad to see this is all coming out now as I could only hazard a guess earlier.

(http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=5110752&postcount=41)

I like this quote:

"I think they saw me taking photographs but they didn't seem to care."

Actually, I'm surprised that if the terrorist saw him that he actually didn't
come to a stop for a good pose and smile for the camera. They like this
kind of attention.

 

[sturmgewehr]

Part of the reason the journalist is alive is because he didn't have a gun. Yes, as he notes, the terrorists saw him shooting photographs of them and they didn't shoot him. Why? Because they wanted as much of the event documented as possible. The journalist was undoubtedly spared because 1) he wasn't a threat, and 2) his work would be beneficial to the cause through his documentation.

Given the low quality of the image, I suspect he wasn't using professional equipment to snap that picture we see here. I suspect it's a camera phone picture or some little pocket digital camera.

If that's true, then the gunman wouldn't have had any idea he was a journalist unless he had on some special clothing with big bold letters declaring such. I think the gunmen looked past him more than likely because something else had their interest.

Just guessing though.

 

[jakemccoy]

I am not sure how you can be attacked by "innocent civilians." She and her crew had a run-in, basically, with an apparently stressed out and apparently somewhat drunken mob who demanded to know what and why she was reporting.

No, the terrorists would not have shot the lights and civilians for sure had the civilians not outed the lights. There wasn't a terrorist threat there in that this was in an area considered safe to be reoccupied by the populace.

I said "nearly attacked". Also, by "innocent civilians", I meant non-terrorist citizens.

Further, I used the term "would have", as in, if the terrorists were there and saw civilians illuminated by a bright light, the terrorists would have shot at the civilians. You can do what you want, but I would have stayed safely away from that light, no matter how many experts claimed the area to be safe. Near that area that you call safe, Sara Sidner was reporting automatic gun fire the next day as it was happening. I was tuning in.

I suppose it's possible to pick apart everything someone says if your sole purpose is to pick the words apart.

 

[yokel]

"I first saw the gunmen outside the station," Mr D'Souza said. "With their rucksacks and Western clothes they looked like backpackers, not terrorists, but they were very heavily armed and clearly knew how to use their rifles. "

Not unlike the 9/11 hijackers, they certainly don't sqaure with images from Jihadist propaganda pictures...




It is the way we have all been knocked off balance.

 

[DeathByCactus]

The photographer said that armed police would not fire back and that he wish he had a gun. Apparently, the photographer would have shot back, but he's still alive right now! If it were me, I wouldn't press my luck. I wouldn't have hero fantasies. I'd be happy to be alive.

The proper response to this attack is tougher than it seems at first glance. There are no totally clear answers because the terrorists and the innocent civilians were in close proximity.

Perhaps the police figured that using a pistol to shoot at guys with automatic AKs was futile; perhaps the cops didn't have clear shots; or perhaps they weren't 100% sure who were the terrorists. I'd like to hear the cops' perspectives. I started a thread about the confusion here:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=409621

Reports indicate that the terrorists had no sense of politically correct rules of engagement. We can sit back and analyze it now. However, the situation was developing and fluid at the time. Imagine the public outcry if the cops accidentally shot a dozen or so innocent civilians. Any type of positive action by the police would have been for naught.

Our police officers fought back with pistols and undergoing heroic car rescues for shot officers during 42 minutes. Terrorists might not understand or care about politically correct rules of engagement, but police should. Innocent people getting shot = Do their job and protect the lives of innocents. I imagine there would be public outcry for wrongly shot civilians, but I wouldn't want to be shot by the men with AK's either. Personally I would aim for where the muzzle flash comes from or whoever has an AK-47 that isn't an officer.

I would like to hear the cops *HONEST* perspective on it. I personally think they were not trained well enough for this situation and had no earthly idea how to approach attackers who are better armed than they are. This isn't something to look down on them for either, all I am saying is I believe they lacked the training as peace officers to take on this situation. I also believe they lacked the armory required to take on these people. Even our peace officers have access to M4's.

I mean they had grenades and full auto weapons. Seriously that's a rough encounter to come up against for a lot of these officer. I can't sit here and say, "I would do this or I would do that." I am not a trained peace officer, nor military. I won't judge them on that premise.

Either way, this was a highly coordinated para military operation conducted with precision and training on the terrorists part. In all honesty, the police were already at a huge disadvantage.

 

[crebralfix]

The gunmen were terrifyingly professional

...while firing from the hip!

Gee....

Did anyone notice this?

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Firing from the hip does not negate professionalism. These guys were apparently well trained, well prepared, and had a plan in place.

I suppose it's possible to pick apart everything someone says if your sole purpose is to pick the words apart.

Well, when you mischaracterize situations and use incorrect wording that completely misrepresents your meaning, then yeah, it is easy. Since when does being attacked by "innocent civilians" translate into being attacked by "non-terrorists"? Come on. Your characterization of what happened to the reporter sounded a lot worse than the reporter's characterization of the event.

You claimed that the terrorists would have shot at the light and the civilians for sure. Gimme a break. What terrorists? Nobody in the group was concerned about terrorists. It was a drunken mob hassling a reporter, nothing more.

 

[jakemccoy]

Double,

It's a mis-characterization my ass. When the camera light went out, Sara yelled "Stop it!" with a tone of voice that meant she was not playing. The blackout is the end of the bit. The incident is replayed again with Sara's explanation. If I was there, I'd be in there right away as if she were being attacked. In fact, the cameraman probably stopped the filming to help her.

Anyway, it's possible to be "nearly attacked" by "innocent civilians". You're making up what I said, instead of just quoting me. It's like you're arguing with yourself...weird.

Also, as I said already, the same area received gun shots from automatic weapons the next day in a live report by Sara, the same reporter. You don't really know what you're talking about here because you assumed the area was safe. Then, you used your erroneous assumption to debate me.

 

[MD_Willington]

They had "tunnel vision"... that is it.

 

[Gord]

Of course, no one considers that Indian cops are probably paid a few bucks a day if that, which probably doesn't translate to "worth risking my life" for most - or that in contrast to (comparatively) well-paid US peace officers, for whom service comes from a sense of duty, it is very likely just A Job, period, for the Indians.

 

[JImbothefiveth]

Do Indian police normally carry rifles, or pistols?

Since concealed weapons aren't legal in India

I don't think that's the case.

 

[fireflyfather]

um, the journalist mentioned using a telephoto lens. It wasn't a lack of modern equipment. It was poor lighting, probably the wrong lens for the distance, and not having time to properly focus while people were shooting live ammo off all over the place. The guy got the picture, so I'd say he did pretty good.

 

[protolith]

I'm sure it was frustrating to see police appear to do nothing. Their presence was at least a first step.

My take on this:
a) The police were not trained for this kind of violence.
b) They were waiting for their version of SWAT or the commandos that showed up later.
or
c) They were waiting until the terrorists ran out of ammo to make their move.
d) The Indian police were sent in with orders not to shoot, or they operate under a doctrine where they are required to get supervisors approval prior to even pulling their weapon, let alone firing it. - not firing when they should might demonstrate a failure of the existing procedures.

I'm sure India is like many other places where the police are not obligated to risk their lives knowingly. I don't want this to come across as cop bashing, but the cops don't HAVE to protect, its just expected they will. Most people don't realize this, but when they witness it in action, they are appalled.

One also has to contrast differences in Indian culture vs American culture.
Many of the Indian cops might of had guns but had no intent of ever using them. While most American cops have seen countless action movies where the cops fire hundreds of rounds at the bad guys and wouldn't hesitate to do the same (despite training, orders, or even if it is a good idea at the time). This disparity in culture might be the reason we have not seen this kind of attack here in the US.