Kaouthia wrote:
So, if I'm understanding this right, the photographer was alive and well until he followed the cop's orders?

I did not see that in the article

In Balance Photography wrote:

I did not see that in the article

I did:
"Sgt Lopez said: 'He verbally ordered him to return to the vehicle, he had to order him twice and he seemed reluctant to go back, but eventually he did.
'When the photographer returned to the vehicle it did not appear that he looking and he was struck by a vehicle traveling southbound.'"

Had been left to carry on photographing the (empty) vehicle, he would probably have not been 'rushed' and might have been paying closer attention to other traffic...

ASYLUM - Photo wrote:
Yes, let's blame the cop.

Yes - let's...

...the photographer wasn't doing anything illegal and should not have been told to leave.

ASYLUM - Photo wrote:
Yes, let's blame the cop.

Why not? Apparently the police didn't have adequate control of the scene. Let's face it the city and or police department is going to get sued.

Studio36

Kaouthia wrote:
So, if I'm understanding this right, the photographer was alive and well until he followed the cop's orders?

Had the photographer followed the first orders, he might have been alive and no story. Forcing the police to repeat the orders concluded in the photographer's death. You can spin it the other way as well.

Not looking where you are going or watching for traffic on a street is going to kill you someday.

studio36uk wrote:

Why not? Apparently the police didn't have adequate control of the scene. Let's face the city and or police department is going to get sued.

Studio36

Great idea. Have the police shoot disobeying photographers' kneecaps and then drag them to safety. That places the police in adequate control of the situation. Of course the UK bobbies might need to bash some kneecaps with their nightsticks.

Or we can expect law abiding citizens to follow a legal order of the police the first time. Not doing so, means the citizen is no longer law abiding.

photo212grapher wrote:
Had the photographer followed the first orders, he might have been alive and no story. Forcing the police to repeat the orders concluded in the photographer's death. You can spin it the other way as well.

If he was breaking no laws by being where he was and doing what he was doing (I don't know that he was or wasn't), why should the police have made the order in the first place?

All this event will do, is further fuel the "Is it legal to photograph cops doing their job in a public place?" debate that seems to be raging all over the USA and the UK.

I wouldn't be surprised if the photographer's family DID go after the cop if he was breaking no laws at the time he was "ordered" to leave.

photo212grapher wrote:
Not looking where you are going or watching for traffic on a street is going to kill you someday.

Of course.

Sam Comer Photography wrote:
One of the first things we all learn as children is "look both ways before crossing the road," right?

Definitely a stupid and tragic way to die, but blaming the cop is pretty lame.

Don't get me wrong, the photographer still well and truly deserves a Darwin Award, and I've nothing against cops (my brother in law is a cop in Boston), but a polite request is very different from an order.

If he was breaking no laws (again, I don't know whether he was or he wasn't), and wasn't impeding the cops' ability to do their job (again, I don't know whether he was or he wasn't - was he right up in their face with a 35mm, or 100ft down the road with a 70-200?), then what gave them the right to order him to do anything?

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
The shooter made a mistake, maybe he will learn form it in the next reincarnation if he is not a lower form of life.

Exactly... and about being 'a lower form of life'... from some of the paparazzi I've met... that's a compliment.  Will the police get sued for causing this guy's death?  You may see some bottom feeding attorney try... but it will get tossed outta court after the on scene testimony from the officer above...

photo212grapher wrote:
Or we can expect law abiding citizens to follow a legal order of the police the first time. Not doing so, means the citizen is no longer law abiding.

Actually, that may not have been a lawful order. Police often give unlawful orders. I once had a police officer ask to see the pics in my camera taken in a public place. Without a search warrant, not only is that not allowed, it is a felony.

PTPhotoUT wrote:

Actually, that may not have been a lawful order. Police often give unlawful orders. I once had a police officer ask to see the pics in my camera taken in a public place. Without a search warrant, not only is that not allowed, it is a felony.

had that happen a few times... im in brooklyn, ny. and quite often ill be out and about taking photos. a bird or something, and building security will bother me, call the cops and say im taking photos of a building im not allowed to... had a cop tell me i had to delet a photo... i simply said, its viewed from public and im legally allowed to photograph it, you, or anyone/thing on the street. he said well i have to see the photos. i said you can when i edit and publish them and walked away and went about my day.

PTPhotoUT wrote:
Actually, that may not have been a lawful order. Police often give unlawful orders.

That was kinda my point too.  If he was breaking no laws by being where he was and doing what he was doing, was the order given lawfully?

PTPhotoUT wrote:

Actually, that may not have been a lawful order. Police often give unlawful orders. I once had a police officer ask to see the pics in my camera taken in a public place. Without a search warrant, not only is that not allowed, it is a felony.

Asking is not an order. Ordering and taking the camera from you is. The police know to ask permission, and most people willing give it. Asking is perfectly legal. No different than me coming over and asking to see the images.

Is standing in the middle road legal? Depends on the local laws, and I will not waste my time researching to determine if doing something stupid is legal or illegal in the region where this accident happened. I know where I live, it is considered loitering and the police has every legal right to order you out of the traffic path. Also, if the police orders you off that street, and you elect to take a path down the road towards your car rather than walking directly to the curb, it is considered jaywalking here. Sue the cop, and I'd tell the cop to write two tickets against the corpse.

The one I feel for is the girl in the SUV. She needs to know the fault was with the photographer, not herself or the cop. I have a friend who ran over two kids horsing around on a dirt bike. One died at the scene. 30 some years later, he will not drive down that stretch of road. It still haunts him.

Kaouthia wrote:
If he was breaking no laws by being where he was and doing what he was doing (I don't know that he was or wasn't), why should the police have made the order in the first place?

All this event will do, is further fuel the "Is it legal to photograph cops doing their job in a public place?" debate that seems to be raging all over the USA and the UK.

I wouldn't be surprised if the photographer's family DID go after the cop if he was breaking no laws at the time he was "ordered" to leave.

I didn't get the impression he was killed because of any order to leave. Nor was he photographing the cops doing their job. He was trying to get a shot of Bieber and knowing the Paprazzi, was probably too close and asked to move back...just as any bystander would be.

Police don't like it when bystanders gravitate too close when they're trying to perform their job. There's no telling who might take a sudden interest. If he had been John the neighbor with no camera and was getting too close for comfort he would have been asked to step back or go back to his car. He wasn't ordered to stop taking photos...just to maintain a distance.

It wasn't the "order" that killed him. We all know what happened because we see it every day.

He saw Bieber's oh-so-subtle car, chased after it, saw it being stopped and moved in. When the police ordered him to back up he carelessly ran back to his car so he could follow the car once the police were finished and he got hit.

On another note: Is it just me or is this Bieber a total fraud? He whines and complains about Paparazzi following him and he's driving around in a vehicle that can be spotted from the next county. He also has a full chrome version doesn't he? He wants to be followed and noticed and then complains when it happens.

L Bass wrote:
Moral of the story.... If a cop tells you to do something... it's usually best to do what he says. After all, he's the one with the gun and the badge.

No, the moral is you always do what the guy with the gun says. The alternative is also listed in the article.

Gary Melton wrote:
Actually, I think it is illegal to stand in the middle of an open, active freeway.

Nowhere in the article did it say he was standing "in the middle of an open, active freeway".  Sure he probably had to run across it (evidenced by the fact that he had to run back over to the other side of it to get back to his car when he got hit), but when he was ordered to leave, was he in the middle of the road?  Or was he safely off the side of it?

Kaouthia wrote:
So, if I'm understanding this right, the photographer was alive and well until he followed the cop's orders?

The way I read it :

Man crosses highway, gets hit by car and dies. Nothing to do with anything else.

Steven Bodo wrote:
besides, who the f*** wants to photograph Justin Bieber anyway?

They do it to sell photos and make money!!   

Steven Bodo wrote:

The way I read it :

Man crosses highway, gets hit by car and dies. Nothing to do with anything else.

Exactamundo!!

Steven Bodo wrote:
besides, who the f*** wants to photograph Justin Bieber anyway?

Exactly. Or his $200,000 car??! Out of all the $200,000 cars I have ever seen, that is one of the ugliest. I wouldn't pay more than $100,000 for it. It's an embarrassment to the Ferrarri name.

Steven Bodo wrote:
besides, who the f*** wants to photograph Justin Bieber anyway?

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
They do it to sell photos and make money!!   

Sadly, true.

The real culpability has to be shared with the endless supply of fools who will line up to see images of mere products like Bieber.  If that market did not exist, paparazzi wouldn't either, and I do believe we'd be better off in multiple ways.

Cause and effect...

Celebrity-worship is just plain dumb.

RKD Photographic wrote:

Yes - let's...

...the photographer wasn't doing anything illegal and should not have been told to leave.

Doesn't matter and it's irrelevant in this issue.

When I was about five years old I remember pulling into the driveway of my home and getting out of the car. I wandered a bit out of my parent's supervision and got into the street where a car almost hit me. They swerved and leaned on the horn and my mother screamed in panic like I've never heard anyone scream before in my entire life. I learned a lesson that day...don't wander out into traffic without looking first or being sure it's safe to do so.

Obviously this idiot photographer wandered out into traffic without looking. Whether he was given orders or not is irrelevant. So what you're saying is the cop wanted him to wander out into traffic when it was unsafe? Of course not. But no, the photographer was probably looking at the shots he just got in his camera and paid no attention to the car that was about to hit and kill him. There are many circumstances that led up to his death, but ultimately nobody is to blame but him.

Steven Bodo wrote:
besides, who the f*** wants to photograph Justin Bieber anyway?

Exactly!  He would still be alive today if he wasn't so hard up to take a picture of this over rated piece of garbage.  I think the Kardashians and him have finally taken over Oprah as the most over publisized people in the world today.  They must spend millions to have their crap put in our faces every minute of everyday.

Just another sign of the dumbing of our youth.