Sometimes, the camera lies

This picture from the hockey riots in Vancouver earlier this month was so much better when it was just a picture about unrestrained love.

116466376.jpg

Alas, reality has stepped in to strip us of all that is good. A video has surfaced which confirms reports that the “kissing couple” had actually just been trampled by the cops.

  • boB from WA

    Is it the camera that lies, or is it the mind that wants to believe in something that may or may not be there? In this case, I believe it is the latter. Given the context of what is happening around these two people, I find it hard (and did at the time of its release) to think that this would be the time to be amorous.

  • Heather

    Man, that’s cold.

  • Jim Shapiro

    boB from WA – Really?

    It was widely reported some time ago that the kiss was a tender attempt to comfort the young woman, who had fallen/been knocked down.

    And I thought that it was common knowledge that immediately following life-threatening events, “amorous” behavior is an extremely common reaction.

    Just goes to show how much I don’t know about what people don’t know. :-)

  • John P.

    I guess a hockey riot is just the wrong place to go looking for love.

  • Bob Collins

    //And I thought that it was common knowledge that immediately following life-threatening events, “amorous” behavior is an extremely common reaction.

    It had been recently suggested the photo was faked.

  • Jim Shapiro

    Bob – Faked as in staged or edited?

  • lucy

    Gosh, I wonder if those ‘Boys’ got their Red Bull before they launched their attack on what appears to be the most vulnerable of all those in the riot crowd.

  • Jim Shapiro

    Lucy -

    Throughout history and across cultures, the primary distinction between law enforcement officers and the citizenry that they protect and serve is the authorization to carry a weapon.

  • Jamie

    I’ll bet that if it was the man’s butt that was showing in the photo, the media wouldn’t keep showing it and discusssing it.

  • lucy

    Jamie,

    I am a bit perplexed with your apparrent disgust of the exposure of this womans hind- quarters.

    Her undies cover more of her bottom half than what I have seen on woman at the public family friendly beaches. And I will comment that her taste in briefs are of a higher standard than what is typically displayed at your Victorias Secret, showcased in the window display.

  • Jim Shapiro

    Jamie -

    That instantly iconic photo is sex and violence and fire – a trifecta wet dream for the visual news media.

    I hope that you aren’t as disturbed by it as you appear to be, because you’ll forever be fighting a painful and inevitably losing battle against not only the almost incalculable powers of the media, but against the powers of human nature as well.

  • Jamie

    Lucy:

    1. I am not disgusted by the woman’s “hind quarters” (isn’t that a term usually associated with animals?). I’m disgusted with the use of her body to get viewers’ attention.

    2. Just because some other underwear or swimwear expose more than is exposed in this photo doesn’t make it all right to use her in this manner.

    Jim: “[S]ex and violence and fire” — I’ll have to address this one later. If anyone is even reading this any more.

  • lucy

    //Lucy:

    1. I am not disgusted by the woman’s “hind quarters” (isn’t that a term usually associated with animals?). I’m disgusted with the use of her body to get viewers’ attention.

    Oh, my apologies then. I thought that your term “butt” in your use of it in a few different comments implied you had a problem with the actual part of the body being exposed which it isn’t.

    Why don’t I feel like it is pornographic or degrading to women?

    Well becuase I guess like Bob or boB said at the top of this thread ‘you see what you want to see’.

    I see a man embracing a woman in the midst of a chaotic situation.

    Hind quarters refers to back end which is what I was referring to in the post.