is traumatic. That's my point. The strongest effect would be on the relatives and friends of the victims and on the survivors who were there. But they are hardly the people who need to be traumatized, are they?
In the rest of the population, some would be jolted into the reality of gun deaths. But many would not. They would double down on ridiculing the reality of mass shootings. They would call the photos fake. The publication of the photos would do more harm than good. It would traumatize people who are already traumatized by grief and shock over the loss and injuries of people they know.
When I had my driver's permit and was out practicing with a licensed driver, I crossed through a main intersection without knowing until I got there that an accident had occurred right around the corner recently enough that first responders were still on the scene. There was a body on the ground with a cloth draped over it, including over the face. Of course I knew what that meant. It was traumatic enough to imprint on me that a car can be a killing machine if the driver is not careful.
But, I did not personally know the people. I did not recognize the cars or anyone standing in the street with the police and EMTs. I did not have to cope with grief and shock over the loss. But suppose I DID personally know the people and the one that was dead? Suppose I arrived before the body was covered. The traumatic shock could have caused another accident on the spot. Any photos of the dead body in the newspapers, on TV, or on magazine covers afterward would re-create that first moment of trauma.
The IDs of the victims cannot be disguised from the people who knew them. The clothing, body size and shape, and the knowledge that their loved one WAS killed at the site will all be painfully real each and every time that the loved ones see the pictures.
And make no mistake about it. They WILL see the pictures. It will happen when least expected, when they are caught off guard while in line at the supermarket with magazine covers and newspaper front pages displaying the photos every time a new update or detail in the case occurs. It will happen when they are at the doctor's office in the waiting room, at the public library, or in the break room at work - every place where there is a public TV.
For loved ones, the pain will not subside. It never does anyway, regardless of circumstances. But with photos of their loved ones' bloody, mangled bodies popping up everywhere when least expected, catching them in unguarded moments, the pain will cut deeper each time.
Meantime, the effect on the general population will be the opposite of what is intended by publishing the photos. People will become desensitized to the sight from repetition.
There was a link on DU a few weeks ago for an interview with the mother of a toddler who was killed in the Oklahoma City bombing. If you're old enough, you might remember the photo of the fireman carrying the limp body of a little girl named Baylee. In the interview, Baylee's mother talked about the trauma of constantly seeing the picture of Baylee's body everywhere on magazine covers and on TV every time the bombing was mentioned, e.g. at each step in the investigation and trials of Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, and each year on the anniversary of the bombing. It has been hell for Baylee's mother, and Baylee's body was intact. Imagine if she had been headless and bloody, or with a bloody face and a missing leg.
Publishing the photos would make life a living hell for close relatives and friends without solving the problem of gun violence.
= new reply since forum marked as read
