That is horrible :(
<a href="http://miamirealestateinc.org">Key Biscayne</a>

It seems the summary for this story on the homepage needs some further proofreading:

"Producer Bernie Bernstein finds the citizen behind the photo gruesome photo...".

Surely the first "photo" is incorrect.

Did anyone stop and think that, in this world of instant news, his family and friends saw this picture before they had other concrete information? He was from NY. People who knew him, were concerned and seeking information when they heard his name on TV or the radio or when they heard about it through the grapevine would have looked at the NYT website for more information. Those people would have been confronted with this picture. Can you imagine the pain of his family and friends? In some other city, where people are not overwhelming for tighter gun control laws, I might buy into the notion that the photo make a point about gun/gun violence. In NYC, it does not make any such point. That argument is hollow in New York. The picture upset his family and left in the minds of his family and friends an image that they did not want to have. Victims of violence should not be treated in this way.

I lived in France and the evening news showed news footage for example from African warfare with body parts strewn all around. Possibly, by making things so antiseptic in the US, we have made ourselves less sensitive to the reality of killing. Certainly, after bloodless brutal electronic games, the "hero" jumps up and everything starts over.

I've seen much worst during the Isreali seige of Lebanon, the Iraq war and the on going, Syrian war. It's time that the Times caught up with the rest of the world. Perhaps if people saw these kinds of photos, they would do more about gun control.

Ha, you should see some of the fotos in the Mexican press of narcocrim shootings and decapitations...severed heads (not covered up), shot-up bodies, etc. Until USA media starts doing this, most treat this criminal violence just like TV entertainment. Reality is shocking, but true to life!

Shots like this appear in some parts of the world every day. This one warrants a Pulitzer Prize for photo-journalism.

I thought the photo was serene. What immediately came to mind was that lyric from the Wizard of Oz "...(s)he's not only merely dead, (s)he's really most sincerely dead. " I agree that until people see what guns enact, they don't taking shootings to heart.

I've long wondered if the Columbine, Aurora & other shooters were surprised to see actual blood.
If we were more aware of what actually happens when a bullet enters a body- would we be more reticent about letting it happen?

The Times also had the video of the shooter being killed by the police. Was that not also gory? Or maybe somehow less gory because there was no pool of blood in the video? Or less gory because he "had it coming" as a result of his actions that day?

Andy Warhol was an ambulance chaser and nobody complained.

This isn't really that gory: it's the reality of gun violence, a major problem in our society. The tragedy of these photos is if the decedent's family or friends saw them before/ whilst learning of the tragedy. Even so, many murders and suicides are discovered by loved ones at the family home. It has always ever been so.

Frankly, I'm in the Al-Jazeera camp on this, as I believe the news media should report what real violence looks like. If photos from cell-phone texting car-crashes were shown as PSAs on television... the incidence of such accidents may well decrease. Alas, the FCC would not permit such a thing over the public airwaves - only on cable, where PSAs are less likely to get slotted.

So also, should The NY Times be willing to show what violence in war looks like. By tradition, it bangs the drums of war and then insulates American society from the ghastly images from it. Shameful.

Since our society is awash with fake tv violence, it's even a relief to see that real violence, human trauma, and tragedy can shock us anymore. Unfortunately, much of the "shock" was by those with delicate sensibilities, who may or may not be shocked by gun violence.

As a side note, there were several more gruesome, personal photos of the deceased murder victim on Flickr within 2 hours of the shooting. The NY Times' photo is tame by comparison to what were, in essence, crime scene photos.

it's amazing that people find the photo grisly considering that they'll pay to see special effects wizards recreate things like this - and worse - in movies. crime scene photography is not new. it's both appalling and riveting, hideous and beautiful, real and surreal, much like life itself.

personally, I think it's stunning and a very profound reminder of how it can all slip away in a flash.

I think it's appropriate for a top notch newspaper to publish. A normal guy captured Reality. Guns can keep you safe but guns can kill, this makes you realize that on a deeper level then just hearing about shootings. Maybe next time we read about a shooting online or read it in the paper we will all think back to this picture and how horrible and tragic an event it really is.

When I saw this picture on the New York Times site I couldn't believe that someone would actually have taken such a shot let alone peddled it to be published. I am relieved that The New York Times eventually took it down.

I was riveted by his photo. It is tragic and beautiful and profoundly real. I found myself simultaneously wondering at it formally and unable to distance myself from the violence that preceded it. Most news photos do not convey horror and humanity at the same time.

What is interesting is how that image basically sums up the news and what happened better than any other. The way it is compised and all the elements in the frame all make a compelling photojournalistic image. I would argue it is not gory. I would argue it tells the story of the day in a very respectful way. A lot of the other images I saw from that day were somewhat sensationalist and focus heavily on the gore. While this image has shock value it does not read like some of the images published by the tabloids. It fits in with how the NYTimes edits and makes editorial choices. The other one-off pictures have news value too as well, sure, because they are documents, but this image tells a much broader story and gets to the core of our emotions. I am a freelance photojournalist and work for several publications, so this topic to me is fascinating and relevant.

While I was shocked by this image, I was also shocked to see the byline and see that it was taken by a random 'non photographer' with a cellphone. Most images taken by non dedicated photographers a lot of time lack this sort of angle, composition, and smartness. It is also quite revealing of how news is documented in today's digital age.

I was surprised to see it on the cover of the New York Times as well. Shortly after it appeared I wrote on my FB page (with a link to the image): Since when did the New Times become the New York Post.

I'm also a photographer. If I disassociate myself entirely from what it is a picture of, it IS beautiful: the stark red and the extreme angle. It's far enough away so its impact is lessened. That being said, the beauty is inconsequential when measured against the life of Mr. Ercolino.

Not to sound macabre but given all the graphic images of violence on television, in movies, and video games I'm actually encouraged that people can still feel empathy and shock given a simple still image of the aftermath of senseless violence. Maybe there's hope for us as a race after all.

That photograph is shocking and beautiful. I feel like it's something you'd see in a dream sequence of a movie. Is it too gory for the front page of a newspaper? I don't know.

Maybe too gory to be the only pic of the scene. But as number four in a series, many will never see the pic. To those that do, it shows what actually happens when someone is shot. Whatever one's opinion on firearms issues, this is the truth of what firearms actually do. If we're going to allow people to have guns, we need to see the possible consequences.

I have been wondering all day about the photographer: Who is Sam Gerwitz, what's the story with the photo? Thank you for finding the answers.