That’s an awfully small kid; I’m not sure if he’d be old enough to know that a gun pointed at you is bad.
The kid standing on the other side of the soldier is more than old enough to know, and he’s just chillin’.
[QUOTE=Der Trihs]
That’s an awfully small kid; I’m not sure if he’d be old enough to know that a gun pointed at you is bad.
[/QUOTE]
The kid is standing up on his own power…it’s an instinctive reaction if someone points something into your face you are going to react unless you are a baby and can’t focus.
It’s moot anyway, since it’s pretty obvious that you physically couldn’t hold the gun the way that guy is holding it and have it point to his right…his left arm would have to be extended, unless the gun is bent into a curve. Just grab a yard stick or something and try it yourself. Look at the guys feet and the tiles and his body position (you can see the dudes backpack which means his torso is turned left)…if you are human you just CAN’T hold a gun like he is and have it point to the right, where the kid is.
-XT
Yup.
That detail (right down to the casual hands-in-the-pockets) is what convinces me that there is nothing sinister happening here.
I can’t follow all the angles and stuff, but that kid is watching what is happening, he’s old enough to know, and he’s clearly not fussed.
All we can tell from the picture is that the kid’s head, the camera, and the line of the gun all lie in one plane. Now, if the gun really were pointed at the kid’s head, any camera anywhere would meet this criterion. But for any position of gun and kid, there would still be some camera position (actually, a whole bunch of them) for which this would also be true. A 3d camera would reveal the truth, but we don’t have that. We do, however, have other people in the vicinity presumably with binocular vision and depth perception, and it doesn’t look like any of them see the guy pointing a gun at a kid.
Yeah, that’s how it looks to me too. Although of course it could just be that that is how the solder was holding the gun, and the kids walked and happened to momentarily be roughly in the line of sight.
For all we know, the soldier might have been raising the weapon from pointing at the ground to pointing at the sky, and the photographer snapped the pic halfway. Or it might be Photoshopped for propaganda purposes. Wouldn’t be the first time.
I doubt it’s a propaganda photoshop, since on its face it just isn’t clear that the soldier is doing anything offensive (and indeed, the better view is that he isn’t). A propaganda shot would have him acting more menacing, I’d imagine.
So if I were Photoshopping this, and I had him acting less menacing, it would be taken as genuine? Then that’s what I’ll do next time.
It pretty clearly looks like he is pointing his gun at the kid, and people suggesting otherwise presumably have difficulty perceiving depth in two dimensional images.
That doesn’t mean he’s aiming his gun at the kid, and his finger is clearly not inside the trigger guard.
I don’t think it signifies that the kid doesn’t look scared. He’s maybe four. What does he know about rifles? He certainly doesn’t look happy.
All that being said, without context the picture doesn’t tell us anything.
I think this photo is a Rorschach test.
I’m afraid I must call “bullshit” on this. It’s very easy to find photographs that are deceptive about who is pointing at what. Heck, you can be standing beside someone who is pointing at something, and be unsure about what they’re focusing on.
For the record, my first impression was that the soldier was not pointing the gun at the kid, and certainly not in any threatening way. On looking more closely, I think it’s hard to tell if the gun might be pointed at the kid, but even if it is, it doesn’t look to me like it’s being done in a threatening manner (no finger on trigger, butt of gun not shouldered, etc).
Hence, “looks like he is”, not “he is”.
That’s not the source of my “bullshit” call. Rather, I call bullshit on your claim that “people suggesting otherwise [i.e. that the rifle might not look like it is pointed at the kid, or that the appearance thereof may be deceptive] presumably have difficulty perceiving depth in two dimensional images.”
In fact, it’s the recognition of the limitations of representing depth in two dimensional images that suggests the value of giving the soldier the benefit of the doubt.
It pretty clearly looks like he is not pointing his gun at the kid, and people suggesting otherwise presumably have difficulty perceiving depth in two dimensional images.
What benefit? I made it pretty clear that the soldier isn’t doing anything wrong. That’s the problem: the people who think the gun isn’t pointing at the child are all looking for context and then deciding where the gun is pointing:
I think you did not, but no matter.
That’s what I meant by this:
And this:
However, since I was not clear, let me add: I don’t think the soldier is doing anything wrong.
What difference does it make if the soldier is pointing directly at a child or not?
In what world does a differentiation between a fully armed soldier with a rifle on stand-by next to a child or a fully armed soldier pointing directly at a child is somehow important?
Is the understanding of Palestine occupation by Israel so deranged that somehow if he was pointing a gun at a child there would be an outrage (I guess) but having a rifle on stand-by next to child is considered “normal”?
Really?!