PetaPixel

New Anti-Paparazzi Technique: Attempted Murder

gisele1

Boy, is Kanye West going to feel like a wuss when he hears about this. Turns out that if you’re really serious about putting paparazzi in their place, nothing short of homicide will do anymore.

At least that seems to be the way it works in Costa Rica, where three former bodyguards for supermodel Gisele Bundchen are on trial for attempted murder after they opened fire on a couple of uncooperative photographers.

2167355231_134419f4ee_z

The incident took place in April of 2009 at a seaside estate in Costa Rica, where Bundchen and Brady were getting married. Agence France Presse photographer Yuri Cortez and local shooter Carlos Aviles were on the grounds trying to get photos of the wedding when three bodyguards approached them and demanded that they hand over their cameras and memory cards.

Instead, the photogs jumped into their car and sped off, at which point at least one of the bodyguards started blasting away with a pistol. Neither photographer was injured, but they described bullets whizzing within inches of their heads.

The case has finally made its way to court, with the bodyguards refusing to testify and winning a judge’s order — irony alert! — banning any photography of them in the courtroom.

(via FRANCE 24)


Image credits: Fashion Rio Verão 2007 by Tiago Chediak and Paparazzi by supercake.


 
  • Alan Klughammer

    The photogs were probably being less than respectful, but it sounds like the guards really over reacted.

  • dez

    yeah, over reacted. If someone blows your head off, i will say the same.

  • CrackerJacker

    I think the irony would be if the photographers had requested the photo ban, not the bodyguards.

  • Mantis

    Don’t these celebrities know that’s is usually their own god damn publicists who call up the paparazzi and tip them off on where they are?

    It’s all a game.

  • EvilDaystar

    “photogs were probably being less than respectful”
    Not sure what you are basing that off of … the article doesn’t mention their conduct in any way.

  • Aiden

    Papparazzi are scum no matter where they are. That should say enough. Not saying they deserve to get shot and die but they’re useless scum that should just leave people alone.

  • xuj

    dude, some “celebrities” do not bother asking PR, they just call em themselves :-D

  • Tolucophoto

    They’re just people doing a job. There’s a lot worse jobs. Nobody has the right to shoot somebody full stop.
    Let me guess, you’ve never even met a paparazzi photographer let alone had to deal with any so you get your opinions from the internet.
    A lot of these ‘celebrities’ are only kept in the limelight because they get photographed and put in the news and they actually want it.

  • johnwiththelens

    Unfortunate use of the word paparazzi here – an AFP staff photographer is definitely not a paparazzo. Google Yuri Cortez, and see the difference in his work compared with the output of any pap agency who hire people full time to chase celebrities. Also, the picture on the beach accompanying this article is pretty misleading as the situation sounds completely different. The shame is that the big agencies feel they have to supply their clients with coverage of celebrity weddings.

  • Anonymoused

    It’s a job they choose to do, despite how awful it is. Think aggressive solicit calls. It’s a job, but who needs it? Anybody working there could easily get another, less scummy job.

  • Omar Torres

    It is a pity that PetaPixel people does not have the correct information about who Mr. Yuri Cortez is (who has covered conflicts such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Jerusalem and other places like that), nor investigate into the details of this case in particular where Mr. Cortez suffered an attack with firearms. This is the difference between serious journalism and the possibility to write blog with a lot advertising, without consequences whatsoever.

  • Marcus Sudjojo

    I’d say the use of the word ‘paparazzi’ in this article refers to what he was doing at the given situation/moment, which was taking pictures of a public figure, on their private moments, without their consent (some may say this is equal to ‘stealing’ pictures), and may or may not on private property. And to top it off, they even ran away when being confronted (instead of giving some sort of explanations)…

    Let’s say Bill Gates is doing a reality show or something, where he sit down on a sidewalk, put a cardboard out, saying he’s begging the passers-by for some spare change. He maybe Bill Gates, but at that given moment, he’s also a beggar….

    But this article alone is too general (lack of details). Maybe there’s more to it….

  • johnwiththelens

    Hi Marcus, I see where you are coming from and understand how in a lot of occasions it might be tempting to see taking pictures without consent as ‘stealing’. Photos of criminals at court, corrupt politicians caught in the act, and shots from a warzone; these are all images taken without prior permission, and on the whole few would argue about their legitimacy.

    People can have shifting identities, however if something happened to Bill Gates while doing this reality show, it would be misleading to write a headline in which he is referred to as solely a beggar.

    I don’t know the exact details here, so can’t comment, however the problem I have is that the use of the word paparazzi is becoming widespread shorthand for any photographer.

    Am disappointed that this description appears in PetaPixel, who deal mainly in stories about photographers.

    Whether or not paparazzi photography is right or wrong is another argument. The photographers here may have been exploring the options of how to get a shot deemed newsworthy of an event with public interest, and have crossed the line onto private land. They did not of course expect to or deserve to get fired upon. Mr Cortez, given his staff role at AFP, would be less likely in my mind to have been behaving in the manner that the public has come to describe (with disgust) as paparazzi-like.

  • Bruzote

    The scum are the people who view their product anywhere. The people who buy fan mags, news mags, read celebrity online news articles (like this even!), watch live news, etc. ALL create demand for these photos. The publishers sometimes assume the demand is there (such as when a generic news article unnecessarily uses a paparazzo photo), so the publishers are scum as well.

  • Bruzote

    Bodyguards at the level are usually pretty good shots. I’m hoping they were only warning shots. Even that would still be horribly reckless (what if a stray bullet killed a third party!), but at least not intentionally trying to kill.