wtfNeedSignUp
kiwifarms.net
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2019
What exactly did I get wrong? The original photograph had a very specific intention when it was taken and published and the results of it were obvious. The photographer only does the minimum to appear as a good guy, and I remember he never returned the prizes he got for the photo. It's like arguing that a guy that intentionally shot another person and got him paralyzed is blameless because he helped in the recovery process.Wow. I can’t believe you got it almost completely wrong.
The journalist who took the photo defended the Southern Vietnamese commander for years. The guy getting shot was a guy who’d repeatedly murdered the families of South Vietnamese officers and then got sprung from prisons when the South Vietnamese tried to hold a trial.
When the guy moved to the US and Eric Adams, the photographer, defended him and added context that the shooter just saw a wife and family get slaughtered.
The Wikipedia article omits a lot of detail. Adam’s literally defended the shooter before the Senate.