Paparazzo killed after trying to take pic of Bieber

[Rukentuts]

So if I walk in front of oncoming traffic on a freeway, the guy driving the car that inevitably hits me is to blame?

That's a new and exciting opinion.

Depends, technically they could cite you for something if you could have stopped in time and should have seen him.

Ex: If I see someone standing in the middle of I-90 it doesn't give me a free excuse to hit em.

[Deleted]

It's not celebrities' fault if you get hit by a car when going through traffic.

[semaphore]

Who is to blame, REALLY, for the death of this guy? His self? OR is it society to blame making him feel he has to take pictures of celebrities in order to feed the public's need of gossip?

Himself. Really. It's really only himself who is to blame.

Look, not everything is society's fault. Nobody made him take meaningless photos for a living. Society didn't obligate him to feed the public's gossips. He chose this line of work, and he chose to not pay attention to his surroundings while doing so.

I'm sorry that a person has died, but I have trouble feeling any sympathy for the paparazzi. And I have nothing but disdain at trying to blame this on society.

[Kerath]

And this is why we look both ways before crossing the road (and why pedestrians are supposed to stay the hell away from the motorway/freeway).
Man killed by his own stupidity. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Deleted]

Personally I don't care about celebrities and I don't get the stalker-like obsession with following their private lives, but no one is to blame for a guy getting hit walking on a dangerous road other than himself.... there are plenty of people working dangerous jobs for money out there, but this guy chose to put himself in a very dangerous situation, his risk, his choice, and unfortunately he paid a very high price for it.

[Shâréz]

Well, from the article(s) about this it would seem that he simply did not pay (enough) attention to the trafic, thus making it his own fault.

Question though: Is there a law against walking on a freeway in Los Angeles?

[Gamdwelf]

Well, from the article(s) about this it would seem that he simply did not pay (enough) attention to the trafic, thus making it his own fault.

Question though: Is there a law against walking on a freeway in Los Angeles?

The 405 is an interstate and all interstate only automobile traffic is allowed which means no pedestrians, bike, farm vehicles, etc.

[Rukentuts]

Question though: Is there a law against walking on a freeway in Los Angeles?

Typically pedestrians and bicyclists aren't allowed on anything called a 'freeway' in the United States.

[Frolk]

"walked across a Los Angeles freeway"
Natural selection at its best

[Shâréz]

The 405 is an interstate and all interstate only automobile traffic is allowed which means no pedestrians, bike, farm vehicles, etc.

Typically pedestrians and bicyclists aren't allowed on anything called a 'freeway' in the United States.

Well then, that pretty much seals the deal as it being his own bloody fault.

[semaphore]

but then again the people they are following are probably rich enough to have a swimmingpool made of baby tears so I cant imagine they care much.

Being rich doesn't make having your privacy violated any less of a violation. Some may accept it as a necessary price to pay - others may even use it as free marketing - but it's naive and inconsiderate to say celebrities are rich so they don't care. It's justifying the appalling lack of common human decency that defines the papparazi.

[Gamdwelf]

Being rich doesn't make having your privacy violated any less of a violation. Some may accept it as a necessary price to pay - others may even use it as free marketing - but it's naive and inconsiderate to say celebrities are rich so they don't care. It's justifying the appalling lack of common human decency that defines the papparazi.

I didn't know being out in public was protected as a private area.

[semaphore]

I didn't know being out in public was protected as a private area.

I didn't know I said it was. Oh wait, that's because I actually didn't.

[Rukentuts]

An act doesn't have to be illegal to be immoral. Of course immorality is subjective.

[Gamdwelf]

I didn't know I said it was. Oh wait, that's because I actually didn't.

you said somethign about rich people's privacy being violated, paparazzi take pictures of people out and about, not like in their homes or anything.

[semaphore]

you said somethign about rich people's privacy being violated, paparazzi take pictures of people out and about, not like in their homes or anything.

1) There is no legal expectation of privacy in the public, doesn't mean it isn't intrusive to photograph someone's every move. Hence, "appalling lack of common human decency".

2) Photographing people sunbathing in on private property from 1.5 km away using super high powered lenses, climbing up trees to photograph someone dying on a hospital bed, posing as a family member to sneak into hospitals to photograph newborn babies, is functionally and morally exactly like taking pictures of someone in their homes. It certainly isn't "out and about" by any normal meaning of the phrase.

Paparazzi pushes the legal boundaries of acceptable behaviour to breaking point. But morally, they are already far into despicable behaviour.

[Wildtree]

I didn't know being out in public was protected as a private area.

well it is....
No one can take your pic and then use it without your approval, same goes for filming you.
Yet, celebs are giving that part up to some degree, since they are considered a person of public interest, hence why they actually have to live with it, and they do.
Yet the line gets crossed more than often. In a way the paparazzi are actually a high danger to the freedom of press act.
Their constant abuse of said freedom could very well one day lead to restrictions.
Anyhow. There were always celebs, there was always a demand amongst the civilization to hear and see something about them. The thing however is, that it got totally out of line. It got so far, that it actually took a lot away from the stardom of people.
Stars from the early times of entertainment are just that, big stars. Little is known about them. And that actually contributes to their stardom.
In a way, one could even argue that their achievement of stardom has a lot more value, because there wasn't just such an overblown industry of gossip and entertainment news around them. They became stars and gained exposure rather naturally.
Today, every second jerk and every other slut can become a "star". Little talent is needed to get exposure. Exposure not talent, nor quality equals stardom in today's World, Sadly..
I mean.. The Jersey Shore cast.. Good lord.. None of those losers ought to have even one minute exposure. The Kardashians.. Really?
All the multitudes of "real house wifes". All of them are an insult to REAL house wifes. Or in music.... Bieber, at hand here...
Very little talent, a thin voice with limited register, pushed by an industry behind him, into stardom that is zero related to the actual musical talent. That wouldn't be enough to suffice as opening act for well established renown musicians.
There was a time when stars were literally born and rose to stardom through their work, through their talent.
And there are the times where stars are artificially created. That's what we have now.

[Socialhealer]

scumbag down, good news today, cant stand the invasion of privacy and stalking, then everyone buys papers and reads about it...disgusting.

[Rukentuts]

cant stand the ... stalking

I don't know California law, but at least by my state is isn't stalking by a legal definition.

[smelltheglove]

I don't know California law, but at least by my state is isn't stalking by a legal definition.

well, there is frequently a big difference between a legal definition and a more realistic one. mainly because legal definitions have to be able to be enforced