Extra Credit

1. The man that was killed by the subway was pushed onto the tracks by a pan handler and was unable to lift himself up from the tracks. The photographer was able to take the photo "after he tried to help" although many people think that he cared more about the photo than the man.
2. The photographer said he took the photo because he was trying to use the camera's flash to warn the train driver.
3. I don't think the photographer should have taken the photo because it isn't like he was capturing a death that was historically a part of something (like a 9/11 death) it was just a really insensitive display of this man's last moments.
4. The photographer should have told someone else to distract the driver while he continued to try and pull the man up off the tracks.
5. I don't agree with the decision to run the photo on the front page because it isn't an image that needs to be publicized. If some everyday person was murdered, would you show the image from right before they were about to get shot on the front page? I would't.
6. I think that it's only OK to capture life as it happens as a photographer after doing every possible thing to prevent bad things from happening. I don't think an image is worth a life.
7. It isn't ethically acceptable to be involved in a situation he or she photographs because if you as a photographer shoot someone to get an image of murder, that is a situation that you've involved in and it obviously isn't ethical.
8. Photojournalists should avoid influencing events as they happen if there is no way they can help. For example, if a wounded man lies dying on a battlefield, it's not like the photographer can drag them however many miles to the medical camp, so then the photographer can take the photo without influencing the situation. 
9. "How tasteless of the NY Post to publish such a grusome picture for this mans family to see. No one helped this man there were numerous videos and pictures being snapped, yet not one person tried to help save him. Disgusting"