A photographer who provides images for pro-Palestinian groups has lost part of his ear and perforated an eardrum after being shot by police with a rubber bullet during a violent protest against a Melbourne military expo.

The 33-year-old photographer, who provides images for Free Palestine Melbourne and Free Palestine Coalition Naarm, was wounded at about 10am on Wednesday and says he is waiting to find out whether he will suffer permanent hearing loss.

Original URL: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/victoria/protest-photographer-loses-part-of-ear-after-being-shot-by-rubber-bullet-at-rally-20240913-p5kaex.html

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Ilandar@aussie.zone 6 points 4 days ago (8 children)

The photographer, who was not wearing anything to cover his face, claims he was deliberately targeted by officers.

“It must have been targeted as I was standing well behind and not part of the main group. Usually, they shoot the rubber bullets at the lower body, not the upper body. If I was at the front or bending over, I could understand it,” he said.

He has covered up to one hundred rallies since October last year, posting photographs to the social media accounts of several Pro-Palestinian and human rights organisations.

A Victoria Police spokeswoman said: “There is absolutely no evidence to suggest police targeted any photographers.”

What's that saying? "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity"? I highly doubt the police were there with a plan to target photographers. It seems much more likely to me that a combination of a) poor training and b) heat of the moment stupid decision making is the reason why the officer fired in that manner.

Anyway, this is all just further evidence of why the escalation of protests from both sides is insanely stupid. Innocent people end up getting hurt when protestors decide to assault police and the police retaliate with disproportionate force:

Anti-war demonstrators hurled rocks, eggs, beer bottles and canned food at police, who responded with stun grenades, tear gas, pepper spray and rubber bullets during a series of skirmishes outside the Melbourne Convention and Exhibition Centre on Wednesday.

And every time a protest turns violent like this, it just makes it more likely that disproportionate force will be used in the future.

[+] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 1 points 4 days ago (4 children)

[removed by mod]

[–] Gorgritch_umie_killa@aussie.zone 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I don't know, I feel like there was some unnecessary derision there.

I like this place because we have discussions, sometimes weeks long, about the subjects, not the users.

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 0 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Got it, saying protestors deserve to be targetted with indiscriminate chemical weapons = not being a dick. Pointing out that a particular user is calling for the sort of violence banned in the Geneva convention = being a dick.

[–] Zagorath@aussie.zone 1 points 2 days ago (1 children)

saying protestors deserve to be targetted with indiscriminate chemical weapons

Sorry, were we reading the same comment?

[–] NaevaTheRat@vegantheoryclub.org 2 points 2 days ago

I dunno you tell me what the subtext of opening with defending the cops and denying that cops target media. Then goes into both-sidesism.

And then wow look at what happens later:

But to say we shouldn't place any blame on individuals over-simplifies the problem. There are multiple issues at play here, I don't think you can just wave away the personal responsibility of the individuals involved.

Oh look it's both sides are at fault again. If you're filming at a protest, or even attending you have some personal responsibility for getting collaterally shot in the face or teargassed.

This is nonsense, the violence is extremely asymmetrical and involves the use of indiscriminate weapons. I mean imagine if a protestor fired rubber bullets or teargas into a crowd to hit a shell or LM exec, what would anyone be saying about that person? He's not presenting some nuanced critique, he's gone straight into defending violence which would constitute literal war crimes if it wasn't the police doing it.

load more comments (2 replies)

load more comments (5 replies)