To answer the question at the end of your post first... Because knowing the risks involved, he felt it was worth that risk to bring attention to the problem by documenting it photographically. I 100% agree that there is an amount of increased risk involved in what he did. I'm also saying that fact doesn't in any way excuse the behavior of thugs who would attack a man for taking their picture.
Now:
I didn't say that homeless people have no more self-control or moral foundation than animals. You implied that by saying you wouldn't go there with a camera (for fear of getting attacked by a homeless person) just like you wouldn't go surfing in murky water (for fear of getting attacked by a shark). Can we agree that a person with a moral foundation and self-control wouldn't physically attack a person for taking pictures? If so, then saying you'd avoid going there with a camera because you think you'd be assaulted means you think either 1) they lack a moral foundation, or B) they lack self-control. I choose to believe they have both. So why are there places I "choose not to hang out?" Because I know that there are people who will do a similar risk/benefit analysis and conclude that the risk (of me fighting back, or of them getting caught and prosecuted) is outweighed by the potential monetary benefit of stealing what I have (cash, cards, camera, phone, etc.). Brower got his camera back, so that isn't this situation.
Do you have a reference for "FILMING MINORS IS A CRIME"? Because I don't think it is (as long as they're clothed).
Anyway, you seem to think it's ok that he got beaten up because he shouldv'e known better. I think it's not ok, and that there should be consequences for the punks who did it, because that's what we do in a civilized society. And I'm happy to agree to disagree and leave it at that. 
S=I didn't say that homeless people have no more self-control or moral foundation than animals.
R=Right, you implied that
I was saying IT
("So are you saying homeless people have no more self-control than animals?") when I said it was not wise to surf in brown water because of the increase chance of shark attack.
This statement had nothing to do with homeless people in particular, much less their self control but more on placing yourself in what may be a dangerous situation.
That is why I asked you "By which thought process do you come up with this kind of response ?
I did not say
I wouldn't go there with a camera nor did
I Imply
I had "fear of getting attacked by a homeless person".
(S="
You implied that by saying you wouldn't go there with a camera (for fear of getting attacked by a homeless person") .
I asked
YOU R=WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU GO THERE WITH A CAMERA
because of all of the things
YOU said...
S= put yourself in a place you'd choose not to hang out, knew the risks involved i
S=having a potentially violent confrontation
S=people that have no more self-control than animals who suffer from debilitating mental illness, or have serious substance abuse problems, or both
S=think it's OK to physically attack someone
S=they do not feel restrained by a moral code. What I did say starting from the 1st post is
R="Wasn't right (what the perps
did) but he put himself in the situation."
S=Can we agree that a person with a moral foundation and self-control wouldn't physically attack a person for taking pictures?
R=Sure. i think that a person with a moral foundation and self-control wouldn't physically attack a person for any reason !
S= "If so, then saying you'd avoid going there with a camera because you think you'd be assaulted means you think either 1) they lack a moral foundation, or B) they lack self-control.
I choose to believe they have both"'
No, what you think is
S="
a large percentage of the homeless population suffer from debilitating mental illness, or have serious substance abuse problems, or both..." ' 
I would avoid putting myself in that situation if it were true.
S= So why are there places I "choose not to hang out?"
Because I know that there are people who will do a similar risk/benefit analysis and conclude that the risk (of me fighting back, or of them getting caught and prosecuted) is outweighed by the potential monetary benefit of stealing what I have (cash, cards, camera, phone, etc.)'
Ohhhh, I get it .
You wouldn't put yourself in the situation either.
S=Brower got his camera back, so that isn't this situation.
Brower got his camera back because he was a politician and it hit the news.
If it was you who got beat and his camera stolen, do you think your call to 911 would have gotten you and your assailants on the news and your camera back ?
S=Do you have a reference for "FILMING MINORS IS A CRIME"?
Nope, ya got me there.
I was under the impression that a minors photograph could not be taken without parents/guardians permission but I guess that would only be when used for news, crime, advertisements, documentaries, court, polItics etc...
Must have gotten that idea from how they always have the minors face blurred in the above examples.
S=Anyway, you seem to think it's ok that he got beaten up because he should've known better.
Again, "By which thought process do you come up with this kind of response ?
Here is my original post and explanations in your own words below each of the 3 sentences so you may better grasp my 3 sentence post .
R=You go into an area where people are destitute to photograph them.
S="There are places I choose not to "hang out.""
R=+10 for lack of intelligence.
S="And I'm sure Rep Brower knows this, too."
R=Wasn't right
(S=None of which excuses the unacceptable behavior on the part of the kids that assaulted him)
R= but he put himself in the situation.
S="And I bet he knew where he was going, and the risks that were involved"
Better ?