Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
"Woody Harrelson has a history of anger management issues with people and we intend to put a stop to this," Cyrus Nownejad, Levine's lawyer, said Friday.Why not put a stop to it by not sticking a camera in his face? If the paparazzo stands a discreet distance away, I don't see how Harrelson can reach his camera.
This brings back bad memories for me as I was once arrested for punching out Colin Blunstone.
Why not put a stop to it by not sticking a camera in his face?I could not agree more. I think these assholes deserve to get thier cameras busted and asses kicked.
Why would a creature that feeds on brains take any interest in Woody Harrelson?
"Why would a creature that feeds on brains take any interest in Woody Harrelson?"Woody didn't think of that.
Is this like paparazzo intern school? "OK, Mike, you need to look into Woody Harrelson, and if you do a decent job, we'll put on someone people give a crap about. George, you do the same with Dee Snider."
That is as creative an excuse as I can remember hearing. The Jury will smile and pardon him for coming up with that one. Just add in one paid for "Expert Scientist" to testify for a Temporary mistaken-perception possibility, and Woody wins.
…who I quite understandably mistook for a zombie.I quite understandably believe that Mr. Harrelson should have his child placed in protective custody by court order until his mental fitness is evaluated. Who knows, he may commit a murder one day, be sent to prison, and enter the government conspiracy world; just like his own father.Other than that, I agree with fls. Photogs should treat their cameras like handguns. Keep yourself more than arms distance away; make the criminal come to you.
"...I was once arrested for punching out Colin Blunstone."Okay, understandable but not quite understandable.
Did this guy coach Ohio State football in the 70s? I rememeber some news entanglement back then.
Only the nutcases here could take a story about a guy being followed every step of the way through an airport by an complete asshole and turn it into a "we hate Woody" string of childish rants.Let me guess: because Woody is a liberal? Smokes pot? Isn't a Republican?Watch the video and see if you'd like the same treatment.
Only the nutcases here could take a story about a guy being followed every step of the way through an airport by an complete asshole and turn it into a "we hate Woody" string of childish rants.Only a nutball troll could read through the 12 comments here and come up with the conclusion that they were 'we hate Woody'.
Hey, maybe Woody could stop getting treated like a jerk if he changes his name a few times!
Hoosier: "Only a nutball troll could read through the 12 comments here and come up with the conclusion that they were 'we hate Woody'."Did you throw these out? "Why would a creature that feeds on brains take any interest in Woody Harrelson?" "Woody didn't think of that." "Is this like paparazzo intern school? "OK, Mike, you need to look into Woody Harrelson, and if you do a decent job, we'll put on someone people give a crap about. George, you do the same with Dee Snider." "I quite understandably believe that Mr. Harrelson should have his child placed in protective custody by court order until his mental fitness is evaluated. Who knows, he may commit a murder one day, be sent to prison, and enter the government conspiracy world; just like his own father." "Hey, maybe Woody could stop getting treated like a jerk if he changes his name a few times!"
Only the nutcases here could take a story about a guy being followed every step of the way through an airport by an complete asshole and turn it into a "we hate Woody" string of childish rants.Only a nutball troll could read through the 12 comments here and come up with the conclusion that they were 'we hate Woody'.I think that's it in a nutshell.
Jeremy, if that qualifies as 'hate' then you have some issues. Or it's just more projection on your part. Please, do carry on.
I think that's it in a nutshell.We should probably stop with the nut references now that Jeremyoldson is here. He'll no doubt start in with a rant on 'teabag' parties and the nutsacks who attend them.
I quite understandably believe that Mr. Harrelson should have his child placed in protective custody by court order until his mental fitness is evaluated. Well honestly if some idiot was chasing me down and snapping pictures of me and my kid, I'd bust his camera too and that was if I was feeling charitable.
More evidence that the Jeremy/Michael troll has zero sense of humor.Personally, while I don't care one way or the other about Woody Harrelson, I think it was a really funny excuse. Also that he has every right to beat the crap out of the photographer for violating his personal space and privacy.Paparazzi = Zombies. Single mindedly and relentessly staggering after their chosen victim....brains...brains...photos...photos.... Hee
Jeremy,I blame Bush.There. Feel better?
Hoosier - No, this is nice thing to say:"Who knows, he may commit a murder one day, be sent to prison, and enter the government conspiracy world; just like his own father."I think even YOU know what I'm talking about.Bunny - I think Woody's excuse is very funny, but what doe it have to do with the snarky comments?And once again; I think even YOU know what I'm talking about.Just once it would be interesting to see right wing politics separated from a story that has nothing to do with how the person votes.
Just once it would be interesting to see right wing politics separated from a story that has nothing to do with how the person votes.I'm curious: just how detached from reality do you have to be not to realize that...you were the one that dragged politics into this thread? Does it ever rain where you are? If it does, does it rain gumdrops? Are there letters to the editor about stopping unicorn slaughter? I bet the walls are really soft, and all the corners are rounded...
A rich asshole who courts media attention punches a working guy providing Woody that media attention, but does it by being an incredibly obnoxious pest. Hard to know who to root for here. I think I have to give it to Woody on the first tie breaker for that awesome excuse.
Bunny - I think Woody's excuse is very funny, but what doe it have to do with the snarky comments?Sarcastic humor. Woody's comment was also fairly sarcastic and funny. I guess you don't get it.Just once it would be interesting to see right wing politics separated from a story that has nothing to do with how the person votesThen why don't you stop interjecting it? No one said anything about his politics or how he votes until you piped up. The only thing I know about the guy is that he was in Cheers,was really great in Natural Born Killers, has a temper and I think may still own a place in Costa Rica near my family's vacation home.
My favorite Woody Harrelson losing his temper story is a few years ago when he punched out a guy standing in line with him for ripping a fart (btw, where's Titus these days)?JeremyMichaelOldson, you seem to have a propensity for entering a room and dropping a bomb, so be careful if you ever find yourself hanging around Woody!
Just once it would be interesting to see right wing politics separated from a story that has nothing to do with how the person votes.Seriously, are you so completely devoid of intelligence to realize that you are the one who dragged politics into this? And you wonder why people call you a troll.
Seems obvious to me that to a large extent making one's living as a movie star, making millions of dollars doing that, and generally trading on being rich and famous, putting up with the paparazzi goes with the territory. To a large extent. Woody can go drive a truck if he doesn't like it. If he can.
I took delight in Harrelson's excuse.Jeremy, Sweetie, hanging out here, indulging in your hate of those who do not think as you do will do nasty things to your soul, not to mention your blood pressure. Escape! Escape while you still can.
Shame that Woody wasted a perfectly good assault charge and probable civil liability on a no-name photographer. He should save that for someone worth punching in the face, like Katie Couric or Brian Williams. Or even Dan Rather.
I think this supports my "a pop in the snout solves more minor problems than do lawsuits" theory. I remember when Alec Baldwin was charged with punching a photographer who stuck his camera in the car as Baldwin and Kim Bassinger came home from the hospital with their newborn. The jury ruled in Baldwin's favor - who wouldn't? Harrelson's case isn't so clear-cut for me - I mean, celebs depend on fame but they whine when it's imposed on them. I think not sticking a camera right up in someone's face is a good place to draw the line, though. Any object suddenly coming into that range would be perceived as a threat through sheer muscle reflex, if not upon reflection. Kind of like me, in high school volleyball practice - when that ball came over the net right at my face, I put my hands over my head and yelled "NO!" I didn't make the team.
Christy - "Hate" is an overused term.I don't "hate" anybody here.I don't know anybody here.I do disagree with most of the people here.Then again, I'm a liberal and most here are flaming right wing crazos who denigrate our President at every turn.Two years from now the wingnuts here will be desperately trying to figure out how to badmouth a successful President who the American public supports.They're already scared shitless that he'll do his job.
What Beth said. ;-) Including the bit about volley ball.And what DBQ said.And also, whoever said something about a Photographer being close enough to punch. And Woody's excuse is perfect.I do have a little bit of trouble viewing paparazzi as "joe six-pack" hard working regular guy facing off against fabulously wealthy and undeserving narcissists. Pretty much all of what they "report" isn't actually news, and if they cared about privacy or decency they could take pictures of babies at Sears instead of violating the privacy of people in private spaces with telephoto lenses a mile away, or shoving themselves and their camera within arms reach of someone traveling with their child.
Oh, for pities sake, Jeremy. You aren't a liberal at all. And you don't "disagree" with most of the people here at all.You compulsively reflexively knee-jerk disagreement with people here, no matter what they say... because that's how you identify your beliefs.
He had just finished filming a zombie movie.
Gee, Jeremy,No one is blaming Obama or the Democrat party for the bad and possibly psychotic behavior of Woody? He stated he thought the photographer was a zombie. He stated he was still in is role- whatever that means. He is the one who, through his own statements, was acting in a manner that any reasonable person would believe to indicate mental instability and a danger to a child. Peope who think they are zombies should not be allowed around children, especially their own. For the good of the child, it should be taken away until Woody is determined to be sane.Any responsible law enforcemnt officer would have done that and any responsible judge would have upheld it. We cannot have people who believe they are zombies caring for children.Woody's father was serving a life sentence for murder. During several prison interviews, he claimed that he was part of the conspiracy to kill JFK- he was approached to be one of the shooters. That is a fact. You can even look it up.So, Jeremy, how does politics play into all of this? How is Obama involved, or the Democrats, or the VRWC? Are you one of those bizzaro conspiracy theorists, like Hillary, who see a VRWC under the bed?
You compulsively reflexively knee-jerk disagreement with people here, no matter what they say... because that's how you identify your beliefs.Jeremy is a dissagreeablist?
Two years from now the wingnuts here will be desperately trying to figure out how to badmouth a successful President who the American public supports.Jeremy, can you share with the rest of the class how in the hell you got to this point when the thread is about an actor punching out a paparazzi? I mean this transcends trolldom even for you.
Let me guess: because Woody is a liberal? Smokes pot? Isn't a Republican?Because Woody is an irresponsible jerk who cannot control his behavior. He uses his celebrity as an abusive excuse to reason away his bad behavior.His child is in danger if he sees zombies.
Woody can get a zombie but can a zombie get a woody?
Ricpic:According to the ED commercials, it works for anyone as long as you take a long bath outdoors beforehand.
I guess it's a good thing that Woody only had a car, and not a shotgun, chainsaw, or other, more violent means of zombie self-defense.I'd love to criticize the guy more...but in an odd way, his explanation was genius. How many people are going to see this story and find out that Mr. Harrelson is in a zombie flick? I'm not one for zombie movies as a genre (unless Edgar Wright and Simon Pegg are involved), but there's a peculiar hint of marketing to the whole story.
Though I am not clear on how you get the water into those outdoor tubs.
Maybe Michael could pirate Woody's yacht for polluting the California coast, teabag him while listening to Rob Zombie and demand Obama bring the troops home now. That would be quite understandable.
Volcano Bella spews....His child is in danger if he sees zombies.Dude. It was a joke. And a funny one.
Dude. It was a joke. And a funny one.I wil remember that the next time I decide to commit the crime of battery. Ha, ha, ha, it was just a joke, I thought the guy was a zombie. Hee hee, officer, don't you have a sense of humor?Woody Harrelson is a joke. To bad you take him so seriously. But, hey, you people take Colbert, Stewart, and Mahr seriously.
Obama is a crack smoking muslim communist zombie. Jeremy loves him anyway, in the most deep and precious way.
"BJK said... I guess it's a good thing that Woody only had a car, and not a shotgun, chainsaw, or other, more violent means of zombie self-defense."You see, this is why I don't buy this defense. I mean, if anyone's seen even one showing of 28 Days Later, or Dawn of the Dead, or played even just one, single round of Resident Evil, they'd know that a mere punch isn't going to get you anywhere. You need that damn shotgun, man. Single shot, right to the head!Or if all else fails, the tried and true chainsaw.At any rate, for Woody's defense to wash, he's going to have to admit that 1. Someone taught him wrong, and 2. He's managed to avoid at least 30-plus years of cinema and 10-odd years of video game culture to carry such a misapprehension.Does anyone really think that Harrelson's that much of a hermit?;)Yes, for the humor impaired, this entire post was a joke. God, it's sad I have to actually come out and say that...
We cannot have people who believe they are zombies caring for children.Correction:We cannot have people who believe they see zombies caring for children. We must be accurate. Belieft that you are an unnatural creature and seeing unnatural creatures are two different mental diseases. Thank you for your understanding.
"You need that damn shotgun, man. Single shot, right to the head!"You fight zombies with the weapons you have---not the weapons you might want or wish to have at a later time.
"His child is in danger if he sees zombies."Dude. It was a joke. And a funny one.Peter. I think you need to lighten up and get a sense of humor.
However, just in case.....Zombie survival testBe prepared.
A.J. said: "Though I am not clear on how you get the water into those outdoor tubs."What I want to know is why they are always in SEPARATE outdoor tubs. Seems to defeat the purpose, wouldn't you think?
That does it!* opens another tab ** looks up Colin Blunstone *Ah. Zombies. Ha ha ha, Bissage, you wit, you're kill'n me over here. I ♥ Woody Harrelson. Wanna know what gets me with those Nikons with the giant SB900 flashes? Here's what. The Nikon D-90 has an admirable ISO of over 3200 with virtually no noise. This is a brilliant new plateau for digital cameras. That means you can take excellent photos with faint ambient light. Flashes always produce flat ugly photos compared with natural light, however faint. Using a flash, especially in daytime, means the photographer is using automatic settings, which is a major photography cop out and signifies they don't know what they're doing. They don't know what they're doing, yet they get right up in peoples' faces anyway with their gawking equipment. Granted the D-90 is still a small format compared with the full size D-70 or D-2, but still, a flash? Com'on. They deserve to have them bashed in just for that. I'm with Woody on this one. But I think, since the photographer is behind the camera, presumably looking through the viewfinder and not using the live view, it would be reasonable to simply push the camera into the photogs face crunching his nose, then say, "Oops! Apologies, Dear Fellow, didn't see you there behind that extraordinary lens." I do not think this bon mot about zombies is going to win the case for him.
It would not have been a joke had the photographer fought back and sent old Woody to the ER. Oh, the saps would decry violence against celebrities defending themselves against zombies and a new law would be passed making it a felony to defend yourself against celebrites.
C'mon, Chip, surely you understand the value of fill flash in outdoor photography. Wouldn't want Woody's face obscured by unsightly shadow areas!
Good for Woody. This should become a standard defense in courtrooms. It's kinda Monty Python esque or even more like that comedian's Flip Wilson's Josephine's "The Devil Made Me Do It".
Mom:Separate tubs in the Viagra commercials?Perhaps makes it last longer? Heh. NO seriously I wondered about the separate tubs too.
NO seriously I wondered about the separate tubs too.Not to mention that there doesn't seem to be a way to heat the water.....and we all know what cold water can do to certain parts of the male anatomy.
Yes, Maguro, I do understand fill flash, in fact I'm very interested in buying several speedlights to take advantage of Nikon Creative iTTL. But those are always to the side and behind the subject. They're only initiated by the flash mounted directly on the camera. Still, look at any crowd of photographers surrounding a celebrity at any given event or even, say, a tea party, and you'll see cameras, Canons and Nikon mostly, with elaborate and expensive flashes mounted directly on the hotshoe. This means they do not know their cameras or how to use manual settings and must rely instead on automatic. It's like owning skis, a bicycle, a motorcycle, or a hang glider beyond your ability, possibly with the expectation of growing into it. I understand, though, your comment is in jest.
I wil remember that the next time I decide to commit the crime of battery.Assault, surely. IANAL, (but would gladly play one on TV) but isn't "battery" non-physical assault? Yelling in someone's face, spitting (like my neighbor did to her brother and got arrested for), or generally getting in their private space in an aggressive, threatening or confrontational manner? I honestly don't know because we tend to think that it takes a fist and connecting but if that *is* what battery is... then depending on what the Photographer did, it could be that the Photographer is committing battery... though not assault.Understand, Peter, that if Harrelson had to chase the fellow down to put him in the hospital, I'm in agreement with you that there is no excuse.In his face? That gets no sympathy from my at all because I imagine how I'd react to someone rushing up into my personal space... depending how wound up I was (and how recently I'd been in any sort of self-defense training) I very well might drop the guy.An unexpected flash in the face and all five feet one inch of me would likely make him eat his camera.Celebrities are not special people and should not be treated like special people... I'm only going by what I feel a *normal* person could normally expect as a normal reaction to something like that.You seem to be saying that Celebrities *are* special and because they are special that they have an obligation to endure whatever behavior it takes for the paparazzi to get their photos.
Jon Benet RamseyJohn Mark KarrThese things puts me in mind of Rita Cosby pressing her zombie self against the automobile glass getting her shot at John Mark Karr who absolutely basked in the sudden attention poured over him, however briefly. Demonstrating in one photo all that is wrong with celebritycentric journalism. Eww, I just got the shudders. Yes, celebrities need paparazzi for publicity but they would prefer to control these things, no? But the paparazzi are doing the celebrities no favors at all, they're in it for the money and only for the money pure and simple. Seldom do the paparazzi ever organize sufficiently to withhold their free publicity for long enough to impress celebrities with this service they provide in symbiosis. And few are the celebrities who use this brilliantly to their advantage and manage to look great always. Say what you will about P. Hilton but she's played that bit as well as anyone possibly could. And the least she could do is answer my letters once in awhile and end all this restraining order nonsense.
A picture of a violent and agitated celebrity is worth more than a picture of a celebrity with his head down and face covered with a scarf. It's a catch 22, but if you respond in an obnoxious way to an obnoxious photographer, you lose the game.
Video, as edited by the pappo, here.So, what do we have? Photog is dogging Woody as Woody goes about his personal business. Really, he hounds him getting close until Woody reacts physically. Looks like the first incident is just pushing a camera out of his face.Photog goes all aggressive and raises his voice chasing Wooody and claiming assualt. Woody gets PO'ed and does - something - maybe nothing. Hard to tell because the guy holding the camera is the photog. Looks to me like photog cries "assault" when Woody is actually out of reach in one part. Yeah, the outrage. GMAFB. Looks more like photog sells pics and ads now. Woody makes lemonade out of lemons and gets some publicity for his movie."Zombieland." I'll check it out.
It is really amazing that certain morons will excuse anything a celebrity does, even if said celebrity commits a crime.Woody Harrelson is an adult. He knows that he will be hounded by photogs in public places. That is part and parcel of the business he chose. What is lost here is the example he set for the child. The child wil learn that unprovoked violence is the onoy way to settle things. That and creative lying to excuse criminal behavior. Woody is a negligent and dangerous parent.
IANAL, (but would gladly play one on TV) but isn't "battery" non-physical assault? You've got it reversed. Battery is the actual physical assault -- think "battering". Assault is the bit that can be non-physical.My hope is that if Woody is convicted and gets community service, the judge assigns him 100 hours of beating up paparazzi. :)
Why would a creature that feeds on brains take any interest in Woody Harrelson?For the residue. It gets them high.
Woody is an unfit parent. The court should take away his child for the good of the child.
This situation reminds me of the southern sports reporter covering a Harvard-Yale game, who was asked which team he favored."Neither - you're a bunch of damn Yankees and I hope you both lose!"
You've got it reversed. Battery is the actual physical assault -- think "battering". Assault is the bit that can be non-physical.Figures.And yeah... what AL describes sounds like assault and harassment. Certainly unnecessary to get a picture or two... so did he want a picture, or something else?
Post a Comment