Celebrity Road Rage: Case Closed

Having been out of the country since Christmas, I managed to avoid not only most of the Alito hearings but a much more important story: As I predicted back in June, Galo Cesar Ramirez, the celebrity photographer charged with ramming a car driven by unhinged starlet Lindsay Lohan, has been cleared. When I made the point that this was an obvious frameup—with celebrities (the real and obvious menace to our roads) trying to create enough hysteria to get an anti-Paparazzi law passed—many of you, who clearly haven't computed the odds against your ever getting into her pants, gallantly came to Lohan's defense. The Los Angeles D.A. tasked with prosecuting Ramirez has found otherwise:

There was no evidence that photographer Galo Cesar Ramirez deliberately crashed his minivan into the 19-year-old actress' Mercedes-Benz, Deputy District Attorney William Hodgman said Wednesday.

"Based upon the damage sustained to both the victim's and the suspect's cars, it appears that although the suspect was most likely driving carelessly when he collided with the victim's car, it was not an intentional assault," Hodgman said.

The kicker, of course, comes at the end:

The crash was credited with prompting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign a measure allowing celebrities to collect large damage awards from paparazzi who harass them.

So the stars still managed to get what they wanted. Meanwhile, in the months since the original crash (which was far from Lohan's first automobile accident), celebrities have cooked up a rash of fender benders, including another one involving Lohan. In all these cases, claims that the Paparazzi were to blame have been debunked. We're still waiting, of course, for the international media to tell the truth about the White Whale of celebrity accidents: The drunk-driving-related death of Princess Diana—in which the Paris Paparazzi, despite the strenuous efforts of both the royal family and the El Fayeds to railroad them, played no part.

But I'm resting my case. The Stalkerazzi story is horse pucky. Lindsay Lohan should have her license revoked and Galo Cesar Ramirez should get a Pulitzer. Celebrities should be barred from driving anything more dangerous than a Malibu Grand Prix minicar, and the Paparazzi should be honored as the heroes they are!

Comments

Jennifer | January 16, 2006, 11:04am | #

And yet there are cases where the only difference between a stalker and a member of the paparazzi is that the paparazzi carries a camera.

Jennifer | January 16, 2006, 11:07am | #

By the way, what is the singular of "paparazzi"? Paparazzo?

Rich Ard | January 16, 2006, 11:12am | #

"Assholes".

rdkraus | January 16, 2006, 11:14am | #

This thread of no value without semi-nude pictures of LL.

Jennifer | January 16, 2006, 11:19am | #

So let's say I go to San Francisco and follow Tim Cavanaugh everywhere he goes. There I am, when he leave his house in the morning. There I am, when he leaves his office after work. There I am in the bar where he hangs out, at the preschool where his kids go--and finally, the cops get involved. There are two ways this can end:

1. I tell the cops I'm following Tim because he is my True Soul Spirit Husband, but unfortunately hasn't figured this out yet. In this case, I go to jail.

2. I show the cops a camera and explain that I am trying to get candid snapshots of Tim to sell to Libertarian Groupie Magazine. In this case, nothing happens except that Tim still has me as his little psycho shadow.

SR | January 16, 2006, 11:23am | #

"many of you, who clearly haven't computed the odds against your ever getting into her pants, gallantly came to Lohan's defense."

That seems a little bit unfair....

Kevin | January 16, 2006, 11:23am | #

Libertarian Groupie Magazine

worst...magazine...ever

Jennifer | January 16, 2006, 11:25am | #

Libertarian Groupie Magazine worst...magazine...ever

That will change, just as soon as they publish these boffo pix I took of Cavanaugh sitting on the toilet.

Stevo Darkly | January 16, 2006, 11:40am | #

That will change, just as soon as they publish these boffo pix I took of Cavanaugh sitting on the toilet.

Thank you, Jennifer, for totally crashing the incipient rampantness I was experiencing due to thoughts of La Lohan. I may now be crippled for life. (No offense to Mr. Cavanaugh.)

Jennifer | January 16, 2006, 11:43am | #

Stevo, I am simply pointing out that if celebrities like Mr. Cavanaugh are allowed to have any sort of private life, then apparently our whole first amendment will go right down the toilet upon which Mr. Cavanaugh sits.

Evan | January 16, 2006, 11:43am | #

I'm w/ Jennifer. Fortunately, I never got involved in any of the aforementioned Lohan discussions, but, even though I know that Tim is unceremoniously laying it on pretty thick here, it still doesn't make up for his being wrong. I know it's "in" to hate on celebs. I do it all the time. Makes you feel good to tear down those on high. But the painful fact is, if we're going to have laws against stalking, I don't see why there should be any exemptions to it, just because the suspect is holding a camera and the target is famous. Apply the law equally, and fairly.

The fact that Tim chooses to "rest his case" because the recent charges levied against tabloid photographers have been dropped, is just plain odd. How does that follow? It doesn't matter how many times they're vindicated, it still doesn't mean that they should get special protection under the law.

Thomas Paine's Goiter | January 16, 2006, 11:57am | #

I think I would love to have a photographer stalking me. The amount of hell I would put him through...let's look at this weekend:

Worked on grandfather's farm and cleaned out stables and stalls.
Cleaned out birthing stalls for the beef cattle -- only way to get close to there is a bit of a trek thorugh 4 inches of "mud" (hehe) outside of the feeders.
Accompanied my nephew on a 10 mile trail ride to keep his horses fit.

If they wanted the pictures badly enough to get through all of that -- they deserve them. Though I'd surely let the bull out if I saw them :)

Phil | January 16, 2006, 12:00pm | #

"Private life" my ass. These people have full-time 24/7 publicists whose job it is to make sure that they're going to be in places doing things where people are going to have cameras. They have plenty of private life -- believe me, if they don't want to be seen, they won't be.

Don't want people trying to take your picture? Don't try to be an actress/singer/model/photo-op-whore.

Larry A | January 16, 2006, 12:02pm | #

The crash was credited with prompting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign a measure allowing celebrities to collect large damage awards from paparazzi who harass them.

It would be interesting to know the average net worth of paparazzi, other than photography equipment, and thus the chances of actually collecting a damage award. I suspect this is another blood-from-a-stone law.

Jennifer | January 16, 2006, 12:05pm | #

"Private life" my ass. These people have full-time 24/7 publicists whose job it is to make sure that they're going to be in places doing things where people are going to have cameras. They have plenty of private life -- believe me, if they don't want to be seen, they won't be.

Phil, I'm not talking about photographs taken of these people when they're in obviously public places--I have no sympathy for a celebrity who vomits in a nightclub and then complains that someone photographed it. I'm talking about people who will use long-range lenses to photograph these people in their own homes, or crash weddings and other private parties, or people who do what I (hypothetically) described doing to Tim Cavanaugh, following them every place they go.

Evan | January 16, 2006, 12:08pm | #

Phil:

"Don't want people trying to take your picture? Don't try to be an actress/singer/model/photo-op-whore."

Ah, I knew it'd only be a matter of time before the ol' "they asked for it when they got into this business" line was trotted out for show. I'm not saying that they deserve more privacy protection under the law than anyone else---but they also deserve no less. If someone is stalking you, you can have them arrested. But if someone is stalking a "celeb", and they have a camera, then it's somehow alright? Yes, by getting into this business, they gave up certain things. But equal protection under the law should not be one of them.

MainstreamMan | January 16, 2006, 12:13pm | #

"interesting to know the average net worth of paparazzi"

Some make many hundreds of thousands of dollars off of each good shot they take, the more embarrassing the better (often provoked through harassing the celeb).

Although protection of free press is certainly something we don't want to infringe upon, it does not exempt journalists from following the laws of the land. I can't stop the journo from publishing anything (as the government), but I can expect them to follow the law when doing their job. Any behavior that breaks the law, breaks the law. It doesn't matter who you are... president or journalist. Journalists who take pictures of a celeb when they are in public are not breaking any law. Journalists who trespass or harass or speed while getting those shots might have broken a law. If their actions meet the strict definition of stalking, then they have broken a law. They can still publish their photos, but can't whine about law suits or fines or other punishment for their illegal behavior.

The real solution to this problem is education so that our populace wants and therefore has better things to read about than some 19 year old starlets toileting habits.

Phil | January 16, 2006, 12:14pm | #

I'm talking about people who will use long-range lenses to photograph these people in their own homes, or crash weddings and other private parties, or people who do what I (hypothetically) described doing to Tim Cavanaugh, following them every place they go.

And the cases at hand and under discussion involve none of those things, so there we are!

Number 6 | January 16, 2006, 12:15pm | #

I truly can't decide which class is more offensive–bubble-brained celebs, the tabloid scum who follow them, or the drooling idiots who consume celebrity "journalism." I'd call for a pox on all their houses, but I think a flamethrower is more in order.

Evan | January 16, 2006, 12:18pm | #

Mainstream Man:

"Any behavior that breaks the law, breaks the law. It doesn't matter who you are... president or journalist."

Unless you're Dubba-Bush, and you invoke the concept of the "Unitary Executive" in order to justify your claim that you can do whatever you damn well please, because, after all, you're the president! Then, well, it does matter whether you're a journalist or the president.

Ed | January 16, 2006, 12:18pm | #

Serious comments for a mostly tongue-in-cheek posting.
Oh, and paparazzi are scum and their profession by definition is harassment.

linguist | January 16, 2006, 12:18pm | #

By the way, what is the singular of "paparazzi"? Paparazzo?

Yes. The Brit media, being very into "proper English", often refers to them in the singular with that word. :-)

Warren | January 16, 2006, 12:21pm | #

Phil,
I'm with you. That's what life in the bubble is all about. Don't want people prodding into your private affairs? Then keep them private.

The right to publish pictures taken in public places, seems a pretty direct application of the first amendment to me. Paparazzi are not the equivalent of stalkers. If someone is stalking you, you can get a restraining order (you can't just have them thrown in jail) because they represent a physical threat. Tim's point is that paparazzi don't represent the same threat, hysterical whining of celebrities not withstanding.

mediageek | January 16, 2006, 12:26pm | #

Lindsey Lohan?

(FARK)

Sharp knees!

(/FARK)

Jennifer | January 16, 2006, 12:31pm | #

Paparazzi are not the equivalent of stalkers. If someone is stalking you, you can get a restraining order (you can't just have them thrown in jail) because they represent a physical threat. Tim's point is that paparazzi don't represent the same threat, hysterical whining of celebrities not withstanding.

If the guy is following you wherever you go (either on foot or in his car) that sounds like a stalker to me.

Lincoln | January 16, 2006, 12:41pm | #

many of you, who clearly haven't computed the odds against your ever getting into her pants

So you're saying there's a chance!

MainstreamMan | January 16, 2006, 12:45pm | #

Evan,
Wow, you're right, there should be classes of special people in our society ;-) Our leader has set such an example.

Jemez Hobbit | January 16, 2006, 12:46pm | #

.. in MHO, I think that the right to privacy trumps the public's right to have constant photos of some celeb in her bikini ..

.. Hobbit

matt | January 16, 2006, 12:48pm | #

"This thread of no value without semi-nude pictures of LL."


Well, that all depends on if the pictures are before or after the rail-thin anorexic look she has going on right now.

R.J. Lehmann | January 16, 2006, 12:51pm | #

[i]By the way, what is the singular of "paparazzi"? Paparazzo?

Yes. The Brit media, being very into "proper English", often refers to them in the singular with that word. :-)[/i]

The term itself comes from Walter Santesso's character -- the photographer Paparazzo -- in Fellini's La Dolce Vita.

Josh | January 16, 2006, 12:51pm | #

Paparazzo is the name of the hounding celebrity photographer in La Dolce Vita, which is where we get the word.

Lost_In_Translation | January 16, 2006, 1:02pm | #

I agree with Number 6 of course, but I must admit, Paparazzi can pose a threat for night driving (one of the possible causes for Diana's death other than stupidly not wearing a seatbelt) They drive along and their partners flash pictures which can blind drivers temporarily. Not saying it happens alot, but it does happen. That behavior is most definitely a violation and deserves fines and punishment. Otherwise, the paparazzi are hazards of the job.

Sandy | January 16, 2006, 1:29pm | #

many of you, who clearly haven't computed the odds against your ever getting into her pants, gallantly came to Lohan's defense.

So...you're saying if you defend paparazzi, there's some hot photographer into whose pants you have a better chance of getting?

Jim | January 16, 2006, 1:32pm | #

I do not agree with Jennifer's equivocation of the two scenarios she refers to. The one subtle difference between the two is that the motives and intention of the photographers' is pretty obvious (get a picture and leave) whereas the stalking of a jilted lover or other unwanted personal interest is vaguely threatening, although not necessarily so.

I can agree with the general notion that the celebs asked for the attention by becoming celebs, but to some extent the behavior of the paparazzi is the legal and moral equivalent to your kid brother waving his fingers an inch from your nose while sarcastically saying 'I'm not touching you.'

Jennifer | January 16, 2006, 1:40pm | #

The one subtle difference between the two is that the motives and intention of the photographers' is pretty obvious (get a picture and leave) whereas the stalking of a jilted lover or other unwanted personal interest is vaguely threatening, although not necessarily so.

They generally don't take a photo and leave; they take a photo and then take more, and more, and more.

I liked your kid-brother analogy, though.

smacky | January 16, 2006, 3:13pm | #

So Jennifer, will you be posting this picture of Tim on the crapper on grylliade? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Jennifer | January 16, 2006, 3:14pm | #

Only if Libertarian Groupie Magazine doesn't offer me an acceptable bid first, Smacky.

David T | January 16, 2006, 4:16pm | #

Lindsay Lohan was lucky. To see how paparazzi can *really* hurt a celebrity, just google

"Mischa Barton" + stain

I think tht even if Lindsey had been seriously injured, she would have preferred it to *that*....

feigning innocence | January 16, 2006, 8:14pm | #

many of you, who clearly haven't computed the odds against your ever getting into her pants,

Well, it depends on whether said pants are from before the eating disorder or not. If they're more than a size 8, I could probably do it.

Col DuBois | January 16, 2006, 8:15pm | #

The question is, has Lindsey Lohan calculated the odds of getting into MY pants?!

mediageek | January 16, 2006, 9:52pm | #

"Lindsay Lohan was lucky. To see how paparazzi can *really* hurt a celebrity, just google

"Mischa Barton" + stain

I think tht even if Lindsey had been seriously injured, she would have preferred it to *that*....

I had no idea that skeletons were capable of fluid retention.

Yakov Smirnoff | January 17, 2006, 12:17am | #

The question is, has Lindsey Lohan calculated the odds of getting into MY pants?!

In Soviet Russia, Lindsay Lohan's pants are calculating odds of getting into you.

Douglas Fletcher | January 17, 2006, 6:52am | #

I think if all celebrities wore those sunglasses that have goofy eyes or swirls on the face of the lenses, the papparazzi would get really tired of taking their pictures. I don't think the photos would sell, either.

But horn rim glasses with the fake nose and moustache wouldn't do it, those are way too interesting.

James Kabala | January 17, 2006, 12:05pm | #

The real question is: If Lindsay Lohan is a lousy human being, as she certainly seems to be, why would anyone WANT to follow her every move? Paparazzi want to despise celebrities and at the same time be obsessed with them. A more sensible attitude would be to despise them and therefore ignore them.