I recall that Patrick Lagacé made a similar point in his blog following the Boston playoff riot; I didn't buy the argument then (neither did a bunch of people who posted comments) and I don't buy it now. Not to sound callous or uncaring, but the job of a photojournalist involves a certain level of risk (ditto for firemen -- or policemen, come to think of it).

I feel bad for Robert Skinner, but he did enter the area of his own free will in the hopes of snapping that one great shot that would land on the front page. There are photographers who risk their lives everyday, some of them entering war zones halfway across the world, just so they can tell a story no one else can. Some of these men and women do this a great personal risk, and without any kind of security backup or "lifeline."

I admire the courage and the determination of journalists. I certainly feel bad when I read about reporters being injured or killed at home or abroad. Still, I think those who go out in the field must be aware of the risks and dangers that come with the job. I certainly think would be aware that might life might be at risk if I was heading into the heart of a riot to snap pictures.

And more to the point : methinks the men who attacked Mr. Skinner weren't all that interested in a media/law-enforcement connection; they saw a man loaded with expensive camera equipment and tired to rob him. Would they have jumped a guy snapping pics with a cheap cell phone?

Maybe. Maybe not.