Photographers allegedly shot at by bodyguards at celebrity wedding

[huperetes]

<p>"Gisele and Tom's Goons Fire At Photographers"<br /> Gist:<br /> Photographers climb on neighbor's property, authorized according to them, bodyguards spot them, they get chased away, and shot at as they flee.<br /> http://www.nypost.com/seven/04062009/news/nationalnews/pow_pow_at_gisele_vows_163138.htm</p>

<h1><br /></h1>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Always seems helpful to replace the word "Photographers" with "Paparazzi" when discussing these cases, since that carries with it a wildly different (and more accurate) connotation.<br /><br />Still, taking a shot at them seems a bit much. Though I do find it odd that they claim her neighbor gave them permission to use high ground 300 feet away to shoot from, but then fled to their vehicle, which they had "hidden in the dense brush" 500 feet away. If they had permission to be on the neighbor's property, why not simply park there? What did they have to hide? I also find it amusing that they describe what they were doing as simply "snapping wedding photographs," as if they were just another couple of guests at the event.<br /><br />Well, presumably the Costa Rican authorities will sort it out. I've never understood the whole righteous indignation thing on the part of the paparazzi guys. Their behavior is frequently so reprehensible. Not worth shooting lead at them, though. Maybe some rock salt from a shotgun, like the good ol' days. Ouch!</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Hmmmm.......A tabloid paper "reporting" on an event in Costa Rica. On a credibility scale, this would rate a..............?</p>

[huperetes]

<p><strong><em>Matt L </em> </strong> - <a href="http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/photographer">photographer </a> - one who practices photography ; especially : one who makes a business of taking photographs<br>

<em><strong>William K </strong> </em> - <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect">butterfly effect</a></p>

[andylynn]

<p>It's private property. They're hiding at a distance and taking spy shots. They and their agency are trying to make a windfall profit by invading Tom and Gisele's privacy <em>on their own private property</em> - this isn't like street photography and it's not a noble art or public-has-a-right-to-know scenario. I don't know whether what the photographers were doing is legal in Costa Rica but it's certainly wrong.</p>

<p>Whoever had the gun shouldn't have shot at the car but if the Post is trying to imply that the paparazzi were the victims I'm going to take issue with that. For those who aren't familiar with the NY Post's work, it's the same company as Fox News but has slightly lower standards, is not taken seriously as a news source and doesn't even bother trying to pass itself off as a serious paper anymore. Last year they incited a riot against a Red Sox pitcher's pregnant wife (who was injured and threatened with death) by trumping up a nothing story. I wouldn't be surprised if the real story were that the neighbors were out of town, the paparazzi got onto their property by pretending to be groundskeepers, Gisele's security got the neighbor's security to kick them out and the guy who shot at them was a carjacker they ran into 5 miles from the house.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>A slightly different take on the incident from the Boston Herald <a href="http://www.bostonherald.com/track/inside_track/view/2009_04_06_main_track_story/">here</a>, which does label the two guys as paparazzi.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>John: sure, "photographer" is a workable, general term. Papparazi use cameras as part of how they make their living. So does someone who photographs wounds and surgical procedures all day, every day. But we might call that person a medical or forensic photographer, because it helps to understand what they actually <em>do</em> for living, not that a camera is the tool that's involved. What's salient about these two guys isn't that they're photographers, but that they're the sort who specifically, for a living, do things like hide their car in the bushes and try to sneak photographs of private events. Their getaway car is part of their toolset, just like their cameras. But what they are is papprazi - which is a very specific thing.</p>

[markci]

<p>OK John, then lets use the correct terminology for what you term "a bit much." It was attempted murder.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Actually that was <em>me</em> calling it "a bit much," and it was also a <em>bit of sarcasm</em>.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>Papparazi and Photographers are not criminals, like those in the article who trespassers. I don't know what the laws are where the shooting took place, but where I live, if you hit 'em in the back, you're in big trouble. I would think they were probably shooting at them for effect.</p>

[William Kahn]

<p>Just for the hell of it, I checked two more reputable news sources: ABC News and the Washington Post. The Washington Post article is <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/05/AR2009040502133.html">here</a>. The ABC report is almost identical. Interesting that, in both sources, the articles are buried in the entertainment sections, and not headline news even there. It will also be interesting to see if any charges are filed.....</p>

[waltflanagan]

<p>Bad behaviour all around. Two wrongs don't make a right.</p>

[DickArnold]

<p>As Walt said, "bad behaviour all around". It does not look as if Tom was culpable. As a patriot fan, I worry that all this high living has not softened him up for the gridiron tasks ahead of him. Glad no one was hurt. </p>

[ellis_vener_photography]

<p>What makes you think the guards didn't miss deliberately?</p>

[mt4x4]

<blockquote>

<p>What makes you think the guards didn't miss deliberately?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This has about as much bearing as "I didn't realize the gun was loaded".</p>

<p>The gun never should have come out in the first place. It definately never should have been pointed at them. The fact that it was FIRED makes this attempted murder.</p>

<p>Yes, papparazi are annoying and arragont. But this does NOT give anyone the right to assault them or fire a weapon at them. The right thing to do in this sitaution is report them to the police for tresspassing.</p>

[richard_beisigl]

<p>Were they tresspassing?<br>

I think it is going to be one of they said/we said.<br>

I agree with Keith, to pull a gun and start shooting at someone, is just plain wrong; unless you are in fear of your life, or other mitigating circumstances. The person(s) who did this, should be arrested and charged with attempted murder.<br>

And who were these bodyguards? Were they Tom Brady's? or were they on duty or off duty Costa Rica police.<br>

If they were Brady's bodyguards, how did they get their guns pass Costa Ricas Customs?<br>

I bet a "donation" to the local authorities will make this just go away.</p>

<p> </p>