RKD Photographic wrote:

Yes - let's...

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

The cop didn't tell the idiot to cross the street into traffic without looking, I bet. It's pretty easy to avoid getting hit by cars. The photographer was likely doing something stupid.

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

Yes, let's.

safe as houses wrote:

Yes, let's.

Did the cop push him into traffic?

nyk fury wrote:
why is this even in the 'photography talk' section at all?

because paparazzi are photographers? Some of us might find them distasteful but thats where the limits get clearly defined in a society - not by what we like but the extremes that we don't like.  dude was stalking to get a shot.  is that cool or not?  all subjects for other threads but I think the bottom line is that the story is about a photographer doing his job (or what he considered his job).

Kaouthia wrote:
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?

I guess you guys don't understand what the landscape of LA is like. the street he was on was a very busy street. THERE IS NOT PARKING allowed on the street for many parts of the street. Here is an arial view of one of the busier portions



The cop may have been ordering him back to his car because his car being parked there could cause an accident. If so then leaving his car there was an illegal act and the cop had every right to order him to move it.

edit: here is a photo of the area the accident occured, as you can see there is NO legal parking area for the paps car

RKD Photographic wrote:
Yes - let's...

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

The fact he did nothing wrong is also no reason to create new laws as Bieber has now called for.

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.

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

Nothing is to say that he wouldn't have been hit if he followed the officer's warning the first time. You can spin it anyway you like. Reporters have a right to report. This includes photographers.

Kaouthia wrote:
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?

there is no shoulder there, there is no place to park legally

in many places Sepulveda is also called highway 1

Michael Pandolfo wrote:
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.

Fraud because he wants to drive a car he likes? So a person should change their desire so some lowlife assholes with a camera can't find them.

That whole profession should be outlawed and celebrities should have the same right to privacy as non-celebrities. No one should be spied on and stalked period, famous or not.

If I was him I want to be able to drive my car around without some asshole following me waiting for me to do something stupid. That's what's wrong with this world... Total lack of consideration for others.

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

what the cop told the photographer...is neither here nor there.what the cop said...is verbal.words. what the photgrapher did...is an action.
was the cop also supposed to tell him to look both ways before crossing?

tonyfromsyracuse wrote:
was the cop also supposed to tell him to look both ways before crossing?

Hell yeah!!!
...and also should have told the photographer how many steps to take walking back to the car and at what speed. Cop should also have instructed the photographer how to fasten seat belt and in what order he should have started his car....and then given further instruction on how to enter a Highway from a stationary parked vehicle.

EDIT...the poor guy that ended up as road kill simply was focused on his job and suffered from a one-tracked-mind...it's called "tunnel vision" and most photog's here would have experienced it once or twice during the course of working...where their awareness does not go beyond their circle of comfort.

L Bass wrote:
OK... I know you guys are wanting to ask this question, but are waiting for someone else to step up to the plate... So...

What kind of gear was he carrying and was it damaged?

LMFAO!  +100

tonyfromsyracuse wrote:
was the cop also supposed to tell him to look both ways before crossing?

As I said earlier, the photographer still deserves a Darwin Award.

-The Dave- wrote:
I knew that guy. Sad... he was a good kid, not an in your face type shooter, liked long glass and to stand off at a distance.

Sorry to hear of your friends loss. It's epic suck; the situation even worse.

Ugh. All around, just ugh.

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.

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

CharisMedia wrote:
Nothing is to say that he wouldn't have been hit if he followed the officer's warning the first time. You can spin it anyway you like. Reporters have a right to report. This includes photographers.

And nothing to say had he ignored the cop and crossed the road ten minutes later he still would be road kill. Not looking both ways is a deadly sport.

Reporters and photojournalists are just citizens with a job. They must follow the law, too. Jaywalking is likely not following the law.

Har Marshal wrote:
The photos in the news article show both guardrail and control of access fencing, which means this section of roadway has full control of access.  Unless the laws in CA are notably different from the traffic laws in the rest of the US, this person illegally stopped, parked (emergencies only) and crossed the highway as a pedestrian (the fence is present to block pedestrian access).  The police officer could have issued citations for all three of those infractions, along with possibly others.  So it seems the officer chose to warn him off without issuing any tickets, likely in the hope that getting him back in his car and the car moving again would reduce the chance of a collision.

Since this relates to my day job (transportation, not law enforcement) I can tell you that the people pulled over and the police officer as well were already in danger from being hit by distracted drivers, as is everyone who stops near a travel lane on a busy highway.  The added distractions of an illegally stopped car, a pedestrian dashing through traffic and a photographer hovering around a traffic stop increased the danger for all involved.  Being a threat to others in this manner is likely a key reason for being ordered back to his car, whether he was maintstream press or not.  Around here Federal Highway Administration rules require reporters, photographers and videographers working in the highway right of way to wear reflective vests, and if they don't they'll get ticketed.

actually, I think you got it wrong.  The paparazzi was tailing the Bieb (or thought he was).  If you are tailing you are in the same traffic flow and would not have to cross the highway.  you would be parked on the same side as the cruiser and the biebmobile.   just nit picking.  he was illegally stopped on either side.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
actually, I think you got it wrong.  The paparazzi was tailing the Bieb (or thought he was).  If you are tailing you are in the same traffic flow and would not have to cross the highway.  you would be parked on the same side as the cruiser and the biebmobile.   just nit picking.  he was illegally stopped on either side.

From re-reading the article you are correct that it doesn't state he was crossing the highway - only returning to his vehicle.  Since it doesn't say whether he parked upstream or downstream of the traffic stop, it's not clear whether he was facing toward or away from on-coming traffic, but he was apparently walking or running in (rather than across) a travel lane when he was hit.  That's even more suicidal than crossing the highway.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:
because paparazzi are photographers? Some of us might find them distasteful but thats where the limits get clearly defined in a society - not by what we like but the extremes that we don't like.  dude was stalking to get a shot.  is that cool or not?  all subjects for other threads but I think the bottom line is that the story is about a photographer doing his job (or what he considered his job).

no they are not. they have and use imaging devices. so do several billion people with cell phones. paparazzi are the dirty end of the public who feed off of celeb gossip via the rags they sell in supermarkets. this is tantamount to including in the same arena someone who stabs someone else in the eye with a pencil along with someone else who sketches a picture with one.

nyk fury wrote:

no they are not. they have and use imaging devices. so do several billion people with cell phones. paparazzi are the dirty end of the public who feed off of celeb gossip via the rags they sell in supermarkets. this is tantamount to including in the same arena someone who stabs someone else in the eye with a pencil along with someone else who sketches a picture with one.

Gotta agree with this. Paparazzi are picture takers, not photographers.

nyk fury wrote:

no they are not. they have and use imaging devices. so do several billion people with cell phones. paparazzi are the dirty end of the public who feed off of celeb gossip via the rags they sell in supermarkets. this is tantamount to including in the same arena someone who stabs someone else in the eye with a pencil along with someone else who sketches a picture with one.

mmmm you are entitled to your opinion but I am sure many disagree.  that alone suggests its perfectly appropriate to be here.  where else but in the photography forum do we discuss (for no real reason) what constitutes a photographer?

I happen to not be a fan of them. But they do make money taking pictures. and they make their money by being skilled in their craft in addition to being skilled in things we don't like.  Not only are they photographers it would appear by all the definitions thrown about on here they would qualify as professional photographers. I doubt you enjoy the thought but... your analogy about a pencil seems inappropriate and fueled more by anger than discourse.

George Ruge wrote:

Gotta agree with this. Paparazzi are picture takers, not photographers.

they make money from their photos. how do you get to change the rules just because you dont like them?

sammyspade wrote:
The phrase "look both ways" comes to mind.

Followed by "All I really need to know I learned in kindergarten"
While this is sad, people (some of whom are models and photographers) get struck by cars every day.
Traffic accident- very sad- but let's move on

safe as houses wrote:

Yes, let's.

Let's blame both the cop and Bieber.   In fact, we should ban bieber and bieber-esque superstars.

AVD AlphaDuctions wrote:

they make money from their photos. how do you get to change the rules just because you dont like them?

Not changing any rules. To me, a photographer creates a photograph by making choices about lighting, composition, subject... Paparazzi, stalk a victim and shoot, hoping that something they got will be something someone will buy, that's taking pictures, not photography. IMHO

Robb Mann wrote:
The real crime here is that Bieber is alive, and humans are dead.

Yeah, I totally don't get the "Bieber Fever" nonsense...the only person in the entertainment field who is even less talented than him is Nicki Minaj (who is nothing but a big butt with clown makeup)...which is why I'm not going to watch American Idol this year...