Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

0

1st Case under New California Law

Forums > Healthy Debate > 1st Case under New California Law

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

Scheduled Downtime: 19th June 2013 @ 11pm BST. Read More
Leave a Comment
    First · Prev | 1 · 2 · 3 | Next · Last
    StrayCat
    StrayCat (e2 Member)
    9
    13447 forum postsStrayCat vcard Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
    26 Jul 2012 - 9:22 AM
    0

    The California Highway Patrol have filed criminal charges against a paparazzo named Paul Raef who was involved in a high speed chase incident earlier this month with Justin Bieber. Mr Raef was charged with 4 counts of reckless driving. if convicted he could face up to one year in jail and $3500 in fines. As for Justin, he was cited for speeding and is schdeduled to appear in court in September. This is the first case filed under the new paparazzi law in California.

    From Shaw News 26/07/2012

    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links
    26 Jul 2012 - 9:22 AM

    Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

    779HOB
    1
    743 forum posts United Kingdom
    26 Jul 2012 - 9:35 AM
    1

    Why do they need a special Paparazzi law, surely those are just driving offences?

    KenTaylor
    KenTaylor (e2 Member)
    8
    2903 forum postsKenTaylor vcard United Kingdom2 Constructive Critique Points
    26 Jul 2012 - 9:51 AM
    0

    I don't see the relevance either while being ignorant of the new paparazzi law that may involve driving.

    mikehit
    mikehit (e2 Member)
    3
    4724 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
    26 Jul 2012 - 10:21 AM
    0

    Apparently the paparazzi law allows the courts to add another layer of punishment onto the usual penalties for traffic violations.

    Edited to add: whether it will a challenge under the first amendment is another matter. The scumbags who do this sort of thing ususally hide behind that to jsutify their actions.

    Last Modified By mikehit at 26 Jul 2012 - 10:24 AM
    User_Removed
    26 Jul 2012 - 10:56 AM
    3

    There shouldn't be a second layer.

    It's as if to say speeding to get to a movie in time isn't as bad as speeding as a pap. If the occupation isn't illegal it shouldn't be punished under other laws.

    Speeding is speeding. The court will allow you to quote mitigating circumstances like medical emergencies. It's as if the state was full of rich Hollywood types with their own agenda...

    779HOB
    1
    743 forum posts United Kingdom
    26 Jul 2012 - 10:59 AM
    0

    Agree with Chris.

    mikehit
    mikehit (e2 Member)
    3
    4724 forum postsmikehit vcard United Kingdom5 Constructive Critique Points
    26 Jul 2012 - 11:22 AM
    0


    Quote: It's as if the state was full of rich Hollywood types with their own agenda...

    Now what on earth leads you to that conclusion, Chris? Wink

    I agree with your comments on the twin approach to this - I am sure their reckless driving laws are severe enough and the circumstances of their breaking the laws (self profit, greed etc) would enable them to go straight to the severe end of the punishment.

    Don't see why a new law needs to be added. Speeding to show off or get somewhere quicker is potentially just as dangerous. Some may say that if the Biebster didn't speed then the paps wouldn't need to .... so he is possibly equally responsible. Anyway, the paps break existing laws and can be dealt with effectively already. Maybe I'm just missing something here .. It all seems a little unecessary.

    puertouk
    26 Jul 2012 - 6:51 PM
    0

    Paparazzi are NOT photographers, but leeches on society, looking to get something they should not be. String them up where it hurts!

    Carabosse
    Carabosse (e2 Member)
    10
    39115 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
    26 Jul 2012 - 7:06 PM
    0

    So you don't like them that much then? Grin

    779HOB
    1
    743 forum posts United Kingdom
    26 Jul 2012 - 7:11 PM
    0


    Quote: Paparazzi are NOT photographers, but leeches on society

    What makes someone a photographer?

    http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/arts-entertainment/smash-his-camera-gast-40040.html

    StrayCat
    StrayCat (e2 Member)
    9
    13447 forum postsStrayCat vcard Canada2 Constructive Critique Points
    26 Jul 2012 - 8:37 PM
    1

    It isn't just speeding, it's chasing. You can say the person being chased creates the situation, but that's a croc of bullshit. If the pap didn't initiate the chase, the prey wouldn't have reason to speed. Of course, charge the person being chased because they were a danger to others and themselves; but surely any fool can see who the criminal is here. People die as a result of high speed chases, and many times it is some innocent bystander. I say throw the book at the pap and teach them a lesson.

    779HOB
    1
    743 forum posts United Kingdom
    26 Jul 2012 - 9:32 PM
    0

    He was prosecuted for reckless driving - surely that's just a standard law, no need for a special pap law. If someone who wasn't a pap was chasing someone would they be treated differently?

    Carabosse
    Carabosse (e2 Member)
    10
    39115 forum postsCarabosse vcard England269 Constructive Critique Points
    26 Jul 2012 - 9:34 PM
    0

    Pursuing another person in your car is probably in a different crime category to doing 71mph in a 70 limit with no other cars involved...............

    779HOB
    1
    743 forum posts United Kingdom
    26 Jul 2012 - 9:35 PM
    0

    I'm sure it is, but there's a law to cover that so still no need for a pap law.

    First · Prev | 1 · 2 · 3 | Next · Last

    Add a Comment

    You must be a member to leave a comment

    Username:
    Password:
    Remember me:
    Un-tick this box if you want to login each time you visit.