Latest:

03:02 Troops poised for Taliban offensive
02:42 Haiti earthquake death toll rises
02:42 White Stripes blast 'war' advert
02:32 Playground for pensioners approved
02:12 Rise in illness among UK troops
01:22 Police 'to tempt murder witnesses'
01:22 MPs urged to back tax on banks
01:22 Burglaries fall as muggings rise

Mumbai photographer: I wish I'd had a gun, not a camera. Armed police would not fire back

Jerome Taylor talks to the photographer whose picture went around the world

Saturday, 29 November 2008

Sebastian D'Souza

A gunman walks at the Chatrapathi Sivaji Terminal railway station in Mumbai, India, Wednesday, Nov. 26, 2008.

More pictures

Bookmark & Share

What are these?

It is the photograph that has dominated the world's front pages, casting an astonishing light on the fresh-faced killers who brought terror to the heart of India's most vibrant city. Now it can be revealed how the astonishing picture came to be taken by a newspaper photographer who hid inside a train carriage as gunfire erupted all around him.

Sebastian D'Souza, a picture editor at the Mumbai Mirror, whose offices are just opposite the city's Chhatrapati Shivaji station, heard the gunfire erupt and ran towards the terminus. "I ran into the first carriage of one of the trains on the platform to try and get a shot but couldn't get a good angle, so I moved to the second carriage and waited for the gunmen to walk by," he said. "They were shooting from waist height and fired at anything that moved. I briefly had time to take a couple of frames using a telephoto lens. I think they saw me taking photographs but theydidn't seem to care."

The gunmen were terrifyingly professional, making sure at least one of them was able to fire their rifle while the other reloaded. By the time he managed to capture the killer on camera, Mr D'Souza had already seen two gunmen calmly stroll across the station concourse shooting both civilians and policemen, many of whom, he said, were armed but did not fire back. "I first saw the gunmen outside the station," Mr D'Souza said. "With their rucksacks and Western clothes they looked like backpackers, not terrorists, but they were very heavily armed and clearly knew how to use their rifles.

"Towards the station entrance, there are a number of bookshops and one of the bookstore owners was trying to close his shop," he recalled. "The gunmen opened fire and the shopkeeper fell down."

But what angered Mr D'Souza almost as much were the masses of armed police hiding in the area who simply refused to shoot back. "There were armed policemen hiding all around the station but none of them did anything," he said. "At one point, I ran up to them and told them to use their weapons. I said, 'Shoot them, they're sitting ducks!' but they just didn't shoot back."

As the gunmen fired at policemen taking cover across the street, Mr D'Souza realised a train was pulling into the station unaware of the horror within. "I couldn't believe it. We rushed to the platform and told everyone to head towards the back of the station. Those who were older and couldn't run, we told them to stay put."

The militants returned inside the station and headed towards a rear exit towards Chowpatty Beach. Mr D'Souza added: "I told some policemen the gunmen had moved towards the rear of the station but they refused to follow them. What is the point if having policemen with guns if they refuse to use them? I only wish I had a gun rather than a camera."

Comments

First |
Previous
1
2
3
4
5
Next
| Last

174 Comments

Afew people on here appear to be impersonating me, but i just want to know how many of these americans have ever actually used their gun to stop a crime or defend themselves, and also what sort of training did you recieve before you got your gun. If the answer to both these questions is none, il probly not take your points too seriously anymore. You seriously think society opperates better when everyone has a legally defensable right to carry a deadly weapon which they have no clue how to operate safely? I dont think watching afew movies or seing your dad do it afew times actually qualifies you to be armed, no matter what your law permits.
Some countries legally allow you to mutilate people for stealing something insignificant, or even kill people who try to touch your property...does that make it sensible or morally right to do so?? Nope.

Posted by Real Andy | 09.02.09, 13:00 GMT

how much gun crime do you see in northern ireland these days?statistically very little i would imagine,and andy,belfast is literally the 2nd safest city to live in the UK.there should be no need for firearms and we should to live without them excluding military.any coward can use one, the school of thought from which this mecessity comes from needs to be changed.

Posted by richard | 03.02.09, 14:52 GMT

When will these morons get it through their heads that only law abiders abide by gun control laws??? I am in the US and this Obama is talking about even stricter gun control. That man is going to be the death of us all. The majority of americans apparantly agree with him (they voted him in) and therefore have no interest in protecting themselves? Or maybe they think that the Obama is omnipresent and can save them from any and all harm.

Posted by 556NATO | 03.02.09, 02:43 GMT

We must stand up for gun rights for citizens, or we become sitting ducks for any would be terrorist.

Posted by Jody | 02.02.09, 04:58 GMT

RE: Andy and the thread on concealed weapons.
Federal Air Marshals do carry handguns onto planes. The most likely danger, for which they train rigorously, is accidentally shooting another passenger while attempting to shoot the bad guy. Some airlines have also taken to arming the pilots, for exactly the same reasons.
But with respect to terrorists, laws, and the like. The only reason the terrorists in the 911 attacks were successful was because good, law-abiding passengers had no effective means of defense (they followed the laws, terrorists didn't). Terrorists rightly expected to find no effective resistance once on the planes, with only one plane's passengers successfully disarming/interfering with the bad guys. Criminals attack soft-targets. That's why they don't normally engage in fair fights, and attempt to start fights with police, etc. Speaking from studies (CDC) and logic, most gun restrictions only restrict law abiding citizens from defending themselves.

Posted by mw | 01.02.09, 20:46 GMT

history and current events like this one show us over and over and over that the hands of those who work to disarm innocent civilians are filthy with innocent blood; they are the essential accessory, without which the terrorist would be far less successful.

Posted by bob | 31.01.09, 23:10 GMT

Remember that when seconds count, the police are just minutes away. I wish some citizens in Somalia had owned guns when knives were used to kill thousands in an effort of genecide. My 2nd Amendment rights are critical. Also, consider the old and the disabled--nearly defenseless in physical altercation but not with a firearm--the great equalizer still does so.

Posted by Ben | 31.01.09, 01:25 GMT

Trash America if you feel you must. Apparently strict gun laws don't work well in India. I'll hold on to my guns, thank you.

Posted by Michael | 30.01.09, 18:37 GMT

I have been a Deputy Sheriff for over 20 years, I have seen countless times where if a person had been armed they could have stopped a criminal act where innocent lives were lost. I encourage all law abiding citizens to learn to defend themselves. Give Andy a break, he probably doesn't really know what freedom is, he pays exhorbitantly for food, pays very high taxes, therefore he probably can't afford the extra food us Americans can. When I was in Great Britain last year, I saw plenty of fat people. Obesity is a world wide problem, just like violent crime.

Posted by Mark | 30.01.09, 18:23 GMT

andy,

read this information

http://home.scarlet.be/guncrime/wapenbezitcriminaliteitEnglish.pdf

so much for your "facts" about america and it's "ludicrous" rates of gun crime and murder. what you are is brainwashed by the liberal media like most "sheep" have been.

Posted by dsd | 30.01.09, 18:13 GMT

Try using your fist to defend yourself, i walk through belfast feeling completly free and not remotly helpless, i dont rely on a weapon to defend myself, i rely on myself. And since our streets are considerably more dangerous than the suburbs you 21st century cowboys live in, i think i can justifiably give an opinion. If noone has a gun, you dont need a gun...you loosen the laws, more people want them, you have to loosen them again and so it continues that children shoot children, trigger happy eejits shoot people in the street and america remains an diss-allusioned with its own 'id have stopped them if i was there bull'. Im in reality, where guns arnt actually needed. You are the sort of people who get in a fist fight and kill somebody because you cant handle your own business. Pathetic. And also, if it was made legal to carry weapons onto planes, do you seriously think the terrorists would have just taken knives on board? All you would have had was a fire fight & much the same result

Posted by Andy | 30.01.09, 17:33 GMT

For those of you don't live in the U.S. or those that don't follow the Second Amendment of the U.S. constitution. You may not be aware that we do have the right to keep and bear arm's. We have this right because our own federal supreme court has ruled time and time again that police are under no Legal Obligation to protect its citizen's. Just because you call emergency services doesn't mean that they have to show up and help you. When they don't show up in time or don't do there job correctly you can't bring legal action against them. I can point you to the case dockets. If you want to protect yourself from criminals and armed gunmen then you'd better be prepared to shoot back when they start shooting at you.

Posted by Jeremy | 30.01.09, 16:35 GMT

With the reference to Ghandi, he is attributed to many profound sentiments. One that I will paraphrase, as I do not remember the exact phrasing, went something like this:
"The greatest crime commited against the Indian people was when the British took away our guns."

My point is that even Ghandi knew that it's not possible to argue with the power of a firearm in the hands of a determined assailant,
and that the response of arms is sometimes necessary.

"Gun Control means you can hit your target."

Posted by Cliff | 30.01.09, 15:24 GMT

Wow. First, the photgrapher must be highly comended for his bravery. Simply extraordinary that he would risk his life for a photograph. Actually, quite stupid if you ask me. Second, the police should be shot for cowardous. Finally, what kind of security do they have there anyway? Getting in assault rifles to a busy transportation fare? Hopefully, the incident will change security procedures there.

Posted by Frank | 30.01.09, 15:14 GMT

I guess I have a hard time understanding Andy's comments - if a passenger on any of those aircraft that hit the WTC or the pentagon on 9/11 had a gun, and were able to stop the terrorists' plot, preventing those aircraft from hitting the buildings - it would seem to me that thousands of lives could have potentially been saved. Maybe lives would have been lost on the aircraft, but let's not forget that the bulk of the fatalities on that day were not passengers but people trapped in those buildings.

But I take my 2A rights very seriously. I think the police in our country do they best job they can, but at the end of the day, they can't get there quick enough to prevent a crime in most cases. In addition, disarming the people means there is no reason for government to do the will of the people - the most historically brutal regimes had a forcibly unarmed populous.

Posted by Zack | 30.01.09, 14:22 GMT

I would never ever count on a policeman to keep me safe. The upperclass who do, do so at their own peril. They probably haven't had to deal with police on a firsthand basis enough to know any better.

Posted by Orange | 22.12.08, 18:42 GMT

Crime prevention by anyone but the victim is impossible.
Unless you an afford an armed guard 24/7, or would even want that

Posted by birgit | 13.12.08, 13:53 GMT

Don't let anybody take your gun!

Posted by peter | 08.12.08, 21:22 GMT

And this is exactly why I live in the state of Virginia where we are allowed to openly carry our firearm on our side in plain view.

Posted by Michael | 05.12.08, 19:36 GMT

Just goes to show that you can't rely of the police to protect you. You must be ready and able to defend yourself from well armed evil doers. Practice often, keep your powder dry and don't obey the laws that put you at a disadvantage to criminals.

Posted by Thomas | 05.12.08, 00:44 GMT