Madoff Shove
- Thread starter dvmedia
- Start date
justashooter
Member
punky,
"the offending "snapper" is probably a pro ..... he is using a canon EOS 1ds mark III
with what looks like a 24-70 2.8 "L" series lense ...... not cheap gear"
I agree it is probably a 24-70 2.8 lens, but how you can tell it is specifically 1DS Mark III camera is beyond me, unless you were there.
The video shot facing Madof, from behind the still shooter, gives the best view of the camera and the photographer reaching out to push Madof, there you can see the lens.
Duane
"the offending "snapper" is probably a pro ..... he is using a canon EOS 1ds mark III
with what looks like a 24-70 2.8 "L" series lense ...... not cheap gear"
I agree it is probably a 24-70 2.8 lens, but how you can tell it is specifically 1DS Mark III camera is beyond me, unless you were there.
The video shot facing Madof, from behind the still shooter, gives the best view of the camera and the photographer reaching out to push Madof, there you can see the lens.
Duane
chicagoshootr
Well-known member
Shoving photog identified on PDN?
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/12/photographer-at-press-scrum-shoves-bernard-madoff.html
http://www.pdnpulse.com/2008/12/photographer-at-press-scrum-shoves-bernard-madoff.html
MrHasselblad
Member
I also happen to briefly in the background of this story; and can also provide some first-hand perspective.
First the camera hardware that the unnamed person was using was an eight grand (non prosumer) camera body and he was also using a Leica. From what I recall he's (usually) a press stringer; ironically from the Charleston area. He does the stringer thing as a hobby and is actually quite well off financially.
-And although he isn't exactly a full time working professional; perhaps he should have presented a professional image while trying to work.
To close; actually by NY law it would technically be assault one- depending on circumstances.
First the camera hardware that the unnamed person was using was an eight grand (non prosumer) camera body and he was also using a Leica. From what I recall he's (usually) a press stringer; ironically from the Charleston area. He does the stringer thing as a hobby and is actually quite well off financially.
-And although he isn't exactly a full time working professional; perhaps he should have presented a professional image while trying to work.
To close; actually by NY law it would technically be assault one- depending on circumstances.
ewink
Well-known member
It's always been my understanding that assult is unwanted contact, whereas battery is infliction of injury. But like you said, NY state law would determine the differences.
At the risk of sounding unpopular, the lack of punishment for shoving Madoff continues a bad precedent. Cops don't charge people when they shove TV photogs and they won't charge this guy under some invisible 'no harm, no foul' law. I've always found it one of the most annoy parts of the unnecessarily confrontaional relationship between law enforcement and the press.
But I suppose is Madoff doesn't care he got punked, why should we?
cameradog
Well-known member
Nope. Battery is any unwanted touching. It can be as simple as putting a hand on someone's shoulder, or an unwanted hug, or poking someone in the chest. As soon as you touch someone, it's battery.
Assault is the perceived threat of imminent battery. If you raise your hand as if you're going to hit someone, and the person believes you're going to do it, that's assault. If you actually hit him, it's battery as well. If you don't hit him, but he thought you were going to, that's just assault.
Just as you can have assault without battery, you can also have battery without assault. In order for assault to exist, the victim has to experience the threat of battery and believe it's about to happen. If I come up behind you and punch you in the back of the head, such that you never see me coming, that is battery but not assault. It can't be assault because you never experienced the threat of imminent battery, only the battery itself. A threat of violence at some other time is not assault. For example, if I tell you I'm going to punch you in the head next week, that may fall into some other category of crime, but it is not an assault because the threat is not imminent.
States may have various degrees of the crime on their books for classification purposes, such as first degree, second degree, etc. But the basic definitions of assault and battery do not change.
So what happened here? It was an assault and battery. The assault happened when the photographer reached out and made Madoff believe he was about to be battered. The battery happened when physical contact was made.
Note also that confusion arises because assault and battery are both crimes (criminal) and torts (civil). The photographer could probably be arrested for the crimes of assault and battery in this case. Madoff could also sue the photographer for the civil torts of assault and battery. The difference is that in the civil case, Madoff would have to show that he suffered some kind of injury (in the legal rather than physical sense) to collect anything. If he sued and a jury found in his favor, but he couldn't show how it actually harmed him, they wouldn't award him any money. I think this is probably where ewink's confusion originates. It's often difficult to collect a civil judgment in the case of assault, because it's hard to convince a jury that a mere threat caused you any lasting harm.
jim sitton
PRO user
Why are you being harder on this guy than you were on the reporter who threw his shoes at our President?
C'mon, where are all of the "Shove a moron" games?
C'mon, where are all of the "Shove a moron" games?
jim sitton
PRO user
Touche'Because it was a reporter and we have come to expect them to behave like morons
Well played my friend .
ewink
Well-known member
That's what I meant.
Fearless Leader
Active member
Whatever happened before that image almost doesn't matter. That piece of video was looped endlessly and it really just makes me a little sick. We've all been in the presence of the "presumed guilty" as part of our jobs, but we don't break that invisible wall. Now this guy is a stringer, so he doesn't directly have anyone to account to for that action- and if he got the shot I guess good for him. But if we don't stick to certain standards of conduct, we put ourselves at risk, both professionally and physically.
I am surprised he didn't get slapped with a suit, that guys got an army of lawyers, and on top of it plenty of video evidence.
I am surprised he didn't get slapped with a suit, that guys got an army of lawyers, and on top of it plenty of video evidence.