Gary Melton wrote:
Exactly!  I sincerely hope that there is a VERY special place in Hell for paparazzi!!  I also DO NOT feel that I have ANYTHING in common with them...what they do is NOT photography - it's a form of terrorism.  I sincerely hope that the legal system wakes up one day and puts some controls on these selfish bullies!

Jay Farrell wrote:
Like them or not....if there wasn't a need for them, they wouldn't be here.

'Sorry, but that is a BOGUS justification for the paparazzi.

As I've responded to that logic before...there are people who want to see "snuff" films, but that doesn't make it okay to kill people just to satisfy the people who want to see it.

Just because people want to see photos of celebrities doesn't make it okay to screw with the celebrities lives, and it especially doesn't make it okay for them to put the general public's safety in jeopardy as they are doing more and more every day.

IMHO, most of the paparazzi are sorry excuses for human beings and don't deserve anyone's support, pity or excuse-making.  I cheer and salute any celebrity who has the courage and integrity (yes - integrity!) to fight back!  WAY TO GO LAMAR!!!

studio36uk wrote:
Then he picks it all up off the street and puts it in his own car. Methinks Odom will pay dearly for that moment of madness.

Studio36

Perfect evidence that, just because you make a lot of money, you still can be soooo stupid'!

I hope that the photographer will be able to retire from this debacle and Odom will realize how much he needs the press to stay in the sport light and receive endorsements.

I don't like stalkerazzy... but people in public view need to understand that those kind of people are the ones that help them to shovel cash to the bank!

Idiots!

Jay Farrell wrote:
Lamar should be in jail and have to cover all damages, no excuse for that. Want privacy? Stay home, or don't be a public figure.

+1

'Provocation' is no excuse. While I don't agree with the methods employed by many paparazzi, the most Lamar should have done would have been to tell them to fuck off and leave him alone, and then walked away.

Using his physical size to intimidate, steal belongings and damage camera equipment (he was carrying some kind of golf cub or baseball bat like a weapon in that video and his entire demeanour was massively threatening and thuggish) is simply NOT acceptable behaviour from anyone regardless of the alleged provocation, which he has clearly largely brought upon himself by pursuing the lifestyle he has and associating himself with other pap-target celebs anyway.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Kevin Connery wrote:

So an obnoxious jerk isn't protected under the law? A misdemeanor offense (if it is in fact unlawful) is countered with a clear felony offense?

That'd be a place I wouldn't want to live; I'd be too worried that my neighbors might think I'm obnoxious and destroy and steal my property.

We don't protect these scum under the guise that they're photographers; we protect them because what they're doing is (usually) legal. We might--probably should--change that, but right now, most of what they're doing falls into the obnoxious, offensive, rude, and socially unacceptable...but marginally legal.

Destroying someone else's property and/or stealing it, on the other hand, isn't legal.

Who the hell said that what Odam did was perfectly legal. I doubt that a judge will throw the book at him considering the provocation... or should I say continuous provocation.

As far as you calling what the Papparazzi do as marginally legal... well that is a rather simplistic view. They continuously endage the public, they continuously provoke retaliation. They drive very dangerously... I've experianced it myself.

One of these days they will plow into a kid or something and then something will be done about these scum.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Who the hell said that what Odam did was perfectly legal.

Certainly not me.

Fred Greissing wrote:
As far as you calling what the Papparazzi do as marginally legal... well that is a rather simplistic view.

Perhaps. Did this pap do anything unlawful to/around Odam? His wife's twitter indicates he did, but she also indicated as part of that same exchange that the contretemps took place inside their gated area, so I'm not entirely convinced.

Fred Greissing wrote:
One of these days they will plow into a kid or something and then something will be done about these scum.

In the meantime, the simplistic and technical, view is, again, that it's (usually) legal.

I'm making zero excuses for the typically obnoxious behavior exhibited by most paparazzi, and would be in favor of more stringent laws. Prior to those laws, however, taking the law into your own hands--or, rather, violating the laws by your own hands--is hardly the right answer, or even a right answer.

Still, the money it'll cost him in civil court is bound to be relatively tiny for him, so perhaps it was worth it to him-- assuming he doesn't get hit with felony charges.

Raoul Isidro Images wrote:
Paps or not, they too are people and citizens.

I'm not so sure. I rank Paparazzi somewhere in the range of ambulance chasers, used car salesmen, and telemarketers. There's no question that the NBA nobody was acting like an idiot and he'll certainly pay for what he did but at the same time, I hope the insurance company for the paparazzi takes a long time to pay and all his backup gear is in pieces.

Fred Greissing wrote:
One of these days they will plow into a kid or something and then something will be done about these scum.

...or chase a certain princess into a tunnel and cause her, her friend, and their driver to die in a car crash. Oh, wait....

That Italian Guy wrote:

+1

'Provocation' is no excuse. While I don't agree with the methods employed by many paparazzi, the most Lamar should have done would have been to tell them to fuck off and leave him alone, and then walked away.

Stefano... what you don't understand is how many times he has told them to buzz off and leave him alone. Do you think they do... no. Instead of letting him walk away they go after him, get in the way, block his car. It just goes on and on.

Maybe the problem is that you can't accept someone taking a stance against these pricks or you are just too sensetive about damage to cameras.

So you really think he should go to jail after being harrased over and over again by these little shits with cameras.

FlirtynFun Photography wrote:

I agree Fred...these paparazzi are asking for that sort of behavior every time they stalk, cajole, harass a celebrity. I think the police should have shown up and given Odem a $10 fine for littering and that's it. It's a shame we protect these scum under the guise that they're photographers.

I agree.  The press need to start learning to respect the privacy of actors, sportspeople, musicians, models and whoever else.  How would they like it if the shoe was on the other foot and newspaper editors got bullied, stalked, harassed and cajoled by people in the entertainment industry?

Fuck the paparazzi!

Fred Greissing wrote:
Stefano... what you don't understand is how many times he has told them to buzz off and leave him alone. Do you think they do... no. Instead of letting him walk away they go after him, get in the way, block his car. It just goes on and on.

I'm sure they are very annoying, yes, and I don't condone their behaviour any more than I condone his.

However, what they do is (most of the time) within the law; what he did clearly was not.

Fred Greissing wrote:
Maybe the problem is that you can't accept someone taking a stance against these pricks or you are just too sensitive about damage to cameras.

He doesn't have to 'take a stance'.

He put himself in this position of being in the media spotlight. He needs to own it and deal with it without going around breaking the law or people's cameras.

He doesn't have to put himself in these kind of potentially confrontational situations - he has enough money to simply send an employee out if he needs something from a store. You don't see this kind of behaviour from many other arguably bigger celebs (I'd never heard of this guy until I saw this thread) - I've never seen a story about Brad Pitt damaging or stealing a pap's equipment, for instance...

Just because he's 6'10" and 230lb of solid muscle doesn't mean he needs to 'take a stance' against the paps in this way. All he needs to do is keep a low public profile for a couple of years and the problem will resolve itself.

Fred Greissing wrote:
So you really think he should go to jail after being harassed over and over again by these little shits with cameras.

I doubt he will go to jail, and I never said he should, but even if he did I'm sure he would be able to look after himself in there!



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Gary Melton wrote:

Gary Melton wrote:
Exactly!  I sincerely hope that there is a VERY special place in Hell for paparazzi!!  I also DO NOT feel that I have ANYTHING in common with them...what they do is NOT photography - it's a form of terrorism.  I sincerely hope that the legal system wakes up one day and puts some controls on these selfish bullies!

'Sorry, but that is a BOGUS justification for the paparazzi.

As I've responded to that logic before...there are people who want to see "snuff" films, but that doesn't make it okay to kill people just to satisfy the people who want to see it.

Just because people want to see photos of celebrities doesn't make it okay to screw with the celebrities lives, and it especially doesn't make it okay for them to put the general public's safety in jeopardy as they are doing more and more every day.

IMHO, most of the paparazzi are sorry excuses for human beings and don't deserve anyone's support, pity or excuse-making.  I cheer and salute any celebrity who has the courage and integrity (yes - integrity!) to fight back!  WAY TO GO LAMAR!!!

So that justifies the pack animal behavior? How about next, if you don't like a guy's haircut, go bloody his nose or smash his car windows in? Sorry but he committed a violent act towards someone who wasn't doing anything violent.

Kent Art Photography wrote:
No intelligent people were harmed during the making of this story.

Only the readers.

Sleepy Weasel wrote:
I love seeing advice from people that have no clue what it's like to be harrassed by paparazzi. Celeb or not, there should be a line, and we've seen it crossed many times. Those jag-offs don't know when to back off.

I don't know know what sparked it, and Lamar will surely have to write a big check, but that guy probably won't be bugging him again.

And to the guy that lives in California and has never heard of Lamar Odom - . I didn't know people still lived in caves out there.

Agreed. People have no idea what these scumbags do. They block vehicles, take pictures inside your home from helicopters and, at best, they will only walk up to you hit you with a barrage of personal insults about you, your career, your family, your children, your mother with cancer, the works. If I were a multi-millionaire celebrity I'd be the same way. I'd just delcare open season on these asshats with cameras and I'd be blatantly clear that any one of these guys who crosses the line will have a camera in many pieces on the asphalt and I'd gladly pay for the insurance claim just to make it inconvenient for these morons to keep doing what they do. Let them put bread on the table in a way that has higher moral fortitude than pond scum. While what they do may be legal, there is a moral code these people break on a regular basis and kid yourself not, they are a wart on the ass of this industry and give us all a bad name.

And no, I have never heard of Lamar Odom either. I had to google his name. I couldn't care less about the NBA and I care even less about any idiotic Kardashian.

Shot By Adam wrote:
If I were a multi-millionaire celebrity I'd be the same way. I'd just delcare open season on these asshats with cameras and I'd be blatantly clear that any one of these guys who crosses the line will have a camera in many pieces on the asphalt and I'd gladly pay for the insurance claim just to make it inconvenient for these morons to keep doing what they do. Let them put bread on the table in a way that has higher moral fortitude than pond scum. While what they do may be legal, there is a moral code these people break on a regular basis and kid yourself not, they are a wart on the ass of this industry and give us all a bad name.

You're overlooking one teeny-tiny element: destruction of their property involves more than just a civil violation: it's also criminal.

So you'd be spending a fair chunk o'change on lawyers, and/or a fair chunk o'time in court. Then, win or lose, you'd probably spend more time/money dealing with the civil suit.

Yes, you'd be inconveniencing asshats, but you'd be doing it by engaging in felonious behavior. And would probably end up paying the asshat a lot more money than he'd make with photos of you, which would, in turn, lead to more harassment by others in the hopes of cashing in on your sweepstakes.

Were I in that situation, I'd look for an alternative myself, but that might be because I try not to violate the civil rights of others just because they're obnoxious jerks.

That Italian Guy wrote:
He doesn't have to put himself in these kind of potentially confrontational situations - he has enough money to simply send an employee out if he needs something from a store.

So you are basicly saying that it's OK for Papparazzi's to make some one's life hell to the point that they can't go to the store and browse the selves for a snack or something. Your saying it's OK for Paparrazzi's to turn someones life into a sort of house arrest.

How about being able to walk your kids to school?

http://www.eonline.com/news/437137/matt … -brad-pitt

Pitt said there should be laws against celebrity photographers who "climb over your walls wearing camouflage and calling out your kids' names as you're trying to take them to school."

Fred Greissing wrote:

That Italian Guy wrote:
He doesn't have to put himself in these kind of potentially confrontational situations - he has enough money to simply send an employee out if he needs something from a store.

So you are basicly saying that it's OK for Papparazzi's to make some one's life hell to the point that they can't go to the store and browse the selves for a snack or something. Your saying it's OK for Paparrazzi's to turn someones life into a sort of house arrest.

How about being able to walk your kids to school?

http://www.eonline.com/news/437137/matt … -brad-pitt

Are you saying that assault, grand theft/grand larcerny (depending where you are), destruction of property, trespass (car is considered private property) ... is a proper response?

Pitt said there should be laws against celebrity photographers who "climb over your walls wearing camouflage and calling out your kids' names as you're trying to take them to school."

There are ... it's called trespassing, breaking and entering, harrasement ... you deal with it in court not by breaking even more laws and in some states. Now if someone comes unto my property without my permission, I'll deal with them to the full extent the law permits me ... baseball bat to the head ... but out in public? Get a restraining order.

RKD Photographic wrote:
*sigh* More Press phot-bashing from those who've obviously never tried it themselves...
'Paps' as you call them are simply professional photographers who service an identified demand - some are good at what they do, some are not, just like every other profession - take away the demand and they'll probably be happy to photograph internet models for fun.
But that doesn't put bread on the table does it?

Some of you should try making a living working a Press-Scrum before being so utterly charmless about other photographers.

The paparazzi CHOOSE to do what they do for a living...if they don't like it, they should choose another profession.

I would LOVE to see the celebrity world come together to create a "Super Legal Fund" so that they could collectively sue the pants off of every paparazzi out there when they cross the line - as they do every day.  Reports like the one by Kim Kardashian of paparazzi in 4 cars boxing her in to force her to drive at their speed while they snap away at their leisure - and other equally or more dangerous tactics - are becoming more prevalent all the time.

The paparazzi are not ANY kind of "brothers in photography" as far as I'm concerned.  As a photographer, I have NOTHING in common with stalkers, terrorists and bullies!  They don't deserve anyone's understanding, support or defense.  They are scum...masquerading as "people just trying to make a living".  Loan sharks, gangsters, bank robbers, thieves, muggers, drug dealers...these are all  "people just trying to make a living", but we don't champion them now do we?!

RKD Photographic wrote:
*sigh* More Press phot-bashing from those who've obviously never tried it themselves...
'Paps' as you call them are simply professional photographers who service an identified demand - some are good at what they do, some are not, just like every other profession - take away the demand and they'll probably be happy to photograph internet models for fun.
But that doesn't put bread on the table does it?

Some of you should try making a living working a Press-Scrum before being so utterly charmless about other photographers.

Michael Bots wrote:
Call me cynical.

The indecent may have been staged for the publicity - you never know. 
The photos/video would be worth more to the tabloids than the broken equipment (which may have already been broken equipment).

Good point.  After all the whole K klan and anybody associated with them are nothing more than media whores.  Wouldn't be surprised if they were taping it for their stupid fake "reality" show.

Fred Greissing wrote:
How about this video where Ben Afflek is trying to keep the Paparazzi away from a child he is carrying. ust look at the Paps even try to knock the white sheets out of the construction workers hands.

http://youtu.be/7Q5x5kboaBQ

again and again

http://youtu.be/YtqwKWFZAmY

How about this one where Hally Berry was just trying to have breakfast with her child.

http://youtu.be/bhQ2zk-HYWo

Anyone here that is siding with the Paparazzi are furthering this kind of abuse against children.

How in the hell anyone can see videos like this and defend the paparazzi for one second for any reason is beyond me!

Popular rationalizations for the paparazzi are:

"If there wasn't a demand for it, it wouldn't exist." and "They're just trying to make a living."

A popular rationalization that teenage boys use on teenage girls to try to get them to sleep with them is:

"It makes guys really sick when they don't get sexual release - you HAVE to help me out!"

(I tried it myself, but it never worked for me. )

Rationalizations for the paparazzi make about as much sense as the one teenage boys use to try to get sex!

===============================================================

It would have been interesting if the paparazzi had existed at the time that Dante wrote The Inferno...I wonder what the level of hell reserved for them would have been like!!

Fred Greissing wrote:

Hmmm... have you met them?

I have and I can say that they are both very nice and easy going.

I think the video is great. It clearly shows that Lamar was moving calmly and slowly... didn't even lose his temper and trashed the Paps gear after been given the usual shit from the Paparazzi.

The paparazzi like to get angry images so they provoke the hell out of who they are shooting. I this case the ass holes were grilling him about his marriage... baiting him hoping he would lose his cool, yell or look at them with a crazed expression.

Instead they got a surprize.. he cooly went over and trashed their gear!!!

It was his way of saying he won't have a tandrum, but there will be consequences if you fuck with me or my loved ones.

I really love the way he enjoys posing with a fan and it clearly shows that he was perfectly calm and collected.

Agreed.  Odom has money to spare and wasn't worried about the cost.  He gave a person who was intentionally baiting him just to make a buck the consequences he deserved.  He didn't harm the photographer, he only harmed inanimate objects.  He probably felt it was worth it to him, and quite frankly I agree with him wholeheartedly.

Ecklipse wrote:
Oh man, I hate everything related to those Kardashian girls,  they represent how low entertainment business as fallen, nowadays talent isn't necessary to be a "star", all you need is, I don't even know why these people is famous.

I remember those days when people as Axl Rose thrashed photographers' gear,  still rude, but at least that people had talent and deserved the attention.

Lamar Odom is one of the most talented basketball players on the planet, highly skilled.  He's earned every penney he's made.

Fred Greissing wrote:
So you are basicly saying that it's OK for Papparazzi's to make some one's life hell to the point that they can't go to the store.

I didn't say that and no, I'm not saying that.

The fact that the paps behave the way they do is despicable and I would be happy to see it made illegal.

However, it currently still is legal and until that changes I'm saying that Odom and other celebs don't have to go to the store themselves or walk their kids to school etc. It's unfortunate, sure, but they do have other options and 'taking a stance' like this is just lowering themselves to the same level, or worse, than that of the people who are annoying them.

Two wrongs never did and still don't make a right.

Gary Melton wrote:
How in the hell anyone can see videos like this and defend the paparazzi for one second for any reason is beyond me!

I don't understand why you seem unable to comprehend that saying what Odom did was wrong is not the same as 'defending' the paps.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

Gary Melton wrote:
How in the hell anyone can see videos like this and defend the paparazzi for one second for any reason is beyond me!

That Italian Guy wrote:
I don't understand why you seem unable to comprehend that saying what Odom did was wrong is not the same as 'defending' the paps.



Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com

1)  I personally do not see anything wrong with what Odom did - he was being "attacked" and he "defended" himself.

2)  I don't necessarily believe that saying that what Odom did was wrong is defending the paparazzi...but there are several people in this thread who ARE unequivocally defending them...and I am stating my disagreement with that.


As I have stated VERY clearly - I think that the great majority of the paparazzi are low-life scumbags who don't deserve anyone's pity, support or sympathy.  They should all find a more dignified and less destructive vocation...one that lets them make a living without interfering with (and denigrating) the lives of others.

I am a photographer, they are stalkers/terrorists with cameras...not the same thing!

K E E L I N G wrote:
Lamar Odom is one of the most talented basketball players on the planet, highly skilled.  He's earned every penney he's made.

...if only he had used some of that talent while he was with the Mavericks...

Robert Jewett wrote:
I can't believe photographers here are condoning this behavior because they do not like the Paparatzi's.  Especially the, "I've met him and he's a nice guy.  See how nicely he's throwing things around."

Unbelievable.

I have a strong distaste for their profession and how they conduct their business as well, but his response broke several laws.

Absolutely agree with you!

What always bugs the hell out of me... that even regular photographers think that press photographers and paparazzi are the same...

I call the worst of them "stalkerazzi", because those are the ones that hide in the bushes trying to shoot embarrassing photos of celebrities.

If you are being sent by a media outlet to document an event... especially red carpet for instance... you do shoot celebrities, of course, but you don't stalk them.

Here is a recent example... I shot Colin Farrell, Amanda Seyfried, Aziz Ansari etc.
That was a red carpet event and after everybody left... I left..., edited and submitted the photos needed by the editors.



That is a form of press... but... I don't go hunting for demeaning photos of celebrities, trying to sell them for the highest bidders.

Point is... press doesn't equal paparazzi...

fullmetalphotographer wrote:
No humans involved a Paparazzi and the Kardashians. Who cares?

No brain cells on either side!

Fred Greissing wrote:
Anyone here that is siding with the Paparazzi are furthering this kind of abuse against children.

Gary Melton wrote:
How in the hell anyone can see videos like this and defend the paparazzi for one second for any reason is beyond me!

You're missing the point.

I don't see anyone siding with the Paparazzi or defend[ing] the paparazzi. I do see people objecting to someone being given a social free ride for performing felonious acts just  because of the class of the person being robbed.

You've cited some instances where paps violated the laws; punish them. You've indicated that more laws are needed; write them. But you've also indicated that someone should be able to rob, damage, and steal. That last part is what I find objectionable.

Give the paparazzo his punishment for any/every law he's broken, but don't permit a private citizen (insofar as a kardashian is "private"--their choice) to violate laws willy-nilly because you dislike what legal acts they're performing, or how they do it, as far as it's legal.

What Odam did was unlawful. It doesn't matter if he stole the camera from a paparazzi or a pulitzer prize winning photojournalist: he did damage property he didn't own after entering someone else's vehicle without permission to do so, and drove away with that property.

robert b mitchell wrote:
Couldn't care less about the "paps". They  are just parasites and vermon!

No argument. They're also entitled to equal protection under the law.