Surfers Attack Photographer Over Matthew McConaughey

MALIBU, Calif. — A paparazzo trying to photograph Matthew McConaughey at the beach told police he was attacked by a mob of surfers who threw his camera in the ocean.

The 29-year-old photojournalist told sheriff's deputies that a large group of surfers near Paradise Cove in Malibu approached him and other paparazzi about 2 p.m. Saturday and demanded the group stop taking pictures and filming.

"There was apparently a fight, and the photographer gave a statement that he received injuries," Los Angeles County sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said Sunday. Detectives are investigating, he said.

McConaughey was not involved in the attack, authorities said.

A call to McConaughey's publicist was not immediately returned.

The celebrity Web site TMZ.com posted a video Sunday showing about a dozen young men in swimsuits approaching what appears to be a group of paparazzi and yelling and swearing at them.

A scuffle breaks out after one of the photographers exchanges insults with the group and at first refuses their orders to leave.

"I'll give you a thousand bucks if you leave right now," one of the young men in swimsuits tells the photographers.

Another shoves a photographer filming the scene, and still another says, "We'll draw a line in the beach, and we'll fight for the beach. If you guys win, you can have the beach."

When one member of the group shouts at a photographer, "Get a ... real job," the photographer replies, "This is a real job. What do you do?"

The man replies: "I just drink beer and party."

Comments

[olephart]

And the score at the end of the first half is unruly surf mob 14, parasitical paparazzi 0. This game is being brought to you by Budweiser, the next day after a few six packs and a stint in jail you'll be sadder Budweiser.

[LeonBNJ]

While what we call the paparazzi are understandably undesirable, that doesn't mean that they can be assulted, battered, their cameras or vehicles destroyed. Until the money is killed off in some way that encouages them to go for 'candid' and public venue pictures of celeberties, then it will continue. I suspect in the economic times we are under, it may encourage more to get into the field.

[walk0nwalls]

Those Greasers better watch themselves, the Warriors is coming to town.

[dac253]

I like it. Old school turf war.

The paparazzi suck anyway

[Heidfeld]

Wow, some of the comments in here are really just crazy. It is no wonder the US is in the shape that it is in.

Who are all these people defending the actions of the surfers? What is wrong with you? Do you usually condone assault? Do you usually solve your problems through violence and brute force? Why would you applaud that?

I am no lover of the paparazzi, but in this case it does not matter who they were. There was a disagreement, and a large group of people decided to brutalize a smaller group of people for no reason. Pathetic. Add me to the list of people who hopes the police do their jobs and put these criminals behind bars. They have plenty of evidence with which to identify these people, so it should be fairly easy to do so.

Further, those blaming the paperazzi for this phenomenon are misguided. If people didn't buy the trash magazines in such quantity, then there would be no need for any of this. That probably wont change anytime soon... so be sure to direct your anger where it is actually appropriate.

[Counterglow]

All it takes is for about .0001% of the population to buy those "trash magazines" and aggressive, in-your-face photographers will be around forever.

While I don't think assault is a good thing, sometimes the odd crap-kicking "pour encourager les autres" may not be entirely a bad thing.

[MiraMcB]

Yep...

[Heidfeld]

What is wrong with you? How would you like to have the "crap kicked out of you" for no reason? Did you notice the guy who tried to kick him in the face while he was down? Do you really want to condone that? Do you honestly think that a human being who sees another human being on the ground, obviously suffering, and decides to try and kick that person in the face.... do you think that the person doing the kicking should not go to jail? Maybe not of a long time, but at least for a while to think about it. Do you really want to live in a society with people who do these kinds of things... and are then praised for it? Disgusting.

My guess is that you have never had a serious disagreement with somebody. It isn't always pleasant.

[Rendon76]

So where's the video?

[dortmunder]

"I just drink beer and party."

Uhuhuhuuhuhuh! Yaaar, doood! Uhuhuhuhuhuh!

Californians: Yet another reason to support abortion.

[dac253]

You sound like you're a lot of fun to be around and have many interesting friends.

[scottarino]

you don't.

[genseric13]

They should have buried the pap in the sand neck deep at low tide. Take pictures of them and sell them.

[dattexas]

Dude, one false move, and you accidentally hit someone the wrong way, and they get seriously injured, you go to jail.

And all that because these guys were where they were legally entitled to be. OK? Dude? Now you can go get stoned.

[Mort]

Dude, you go after our bro, we go ballistic fer sure.

[DMHopper]

First, speaking as a professional photographer, we seriously need to put a stop to the interchangeability of "paparazzi" with "photographers" and "photojour­nalists." I am a total elitist on this issue, and paparazzi are not photographers or photojournalists. That's like a porn star comparing themselves to a member of the Royal Shakespeare Company. Not only do I find it personally offensive, but referring to paparazzi as photographers or photojournalists makes it that much harder for legit imaging professionals to do their jobs.

That said, based on the information in this story and the videos on TMZ.com, the paparazzi were doing nothing illegal (up until the fight, where it becomes debatable, which is why we have lawyers). They weren't running red lights and driving on the wrong side of the road to keep up with their target. They weren't even trespassing. They were on public property shooting pictures of someone else also on public property. Private citizens do not have the right to prevent others from taking pictures on public property. You can ask politely that the person stop taking pictures, and if that person wants to be a dick about it, there's not much else to be done except ignore them or leave. Those beach bums are guilty of harassment, assault, and theft and destruction of property, and I hope the paparazzi press charges.

[BlackBuddha]

Moron. That's Riviera Two. It's private property. The mean high tide line (drawn circa 1950) puts public access out in the water. You assume to know where they were. You do not. Paradise Cove is Public Access. These scumbags were trespassing. And I have witnessed them run lights and block intersections to get pictures. But who really cares?

Good men and women are dying in Iraq and Afganisham and these locust just provide something to sell to the media to distract the celebrity addled masses.

Funny thing is... this is really about the beach. Point Dume locals are very protective. And it will get worst for those vultures.

To quote the Surf Punks... My beach, my waves, my girls, go home...

...and know this... Matt is a newbie there. You're not even near local status until you get your ten year chip.

This should be good for the release of his next movie... Surfer, Dude

[mathme]

Surf Punks rule. Their cover of Ballroom Blitz is by far my favorite.

But there are people dying in Iraq and Afghanistan, we shouldn't be talking about the Surf Punks.

[DMHopper]

That's funny, because the story doesn't mention anything about "Riviera Two." It says "near Paradise Cove," which you admit is public access (and if you care to lose a debate with me over the legal gray area that is an individual's rights to take pictures on public access private property, I will be happy to accommodate). My assumptions on the location of the incident were based on the information available to me in the article and the videos the article refers to. So, by your definition, a moron is someone who can read and draw conclusions from what they've read. That would make someone who can't formulate a coherent, on-topic argument--someone such as yourself--what, exactly? Oh, enlighten me, BlackBuddha.

And even if I concede your point that the beach is private property, it's irrelevant, since harassment, assault, theft and destruction of property are crimes regardless of whether they are committed on public or private land. All it means is that the property owners could be within their rights to press charges against both the paparazzi and the beach bums (assuming they are not the property owners) for trespassing, and I hope they do.

By the way, I absolutely love the way you condemn paparazzi for fueling our cultural celebrity fascinatio­n/distract­ion while being so starstruck by Matthew McConaughey's celebrity to bestow honorary 10-year-resident status upon him. That's classic.

[StarkRavingNakedEmperor]

You are Right On! Hey! I always suspected Buddha was black--and Jesus, too!

[MelFamy]

If we as a nation can let Bush and Co. get away with everything they've done in the past 7 years, certainly we can look the other way when a few worthless leeches get their asses handed to them.
I wonder how philosophical one of these actor-stalkers would be if he was bothered every time he left his house, if he could not eat a quiet dinner at a restaurant, or an intimate walk on the beach with his gay lover(well, they ARE a bunch of c*^#s*^#kers), because McConaughey hired a bunch of "photographers" to push their cameras in his face.

[Eric8869]

It's hard top make the distiction between paparazzi and photojournalists when some of the most award winning photographers have turned into paparazzi.

Everyone remember that famous picure of the little girl in vietnam running without clothes on because of a napalm attack? Yep - that photographer now chases Lindsey Lohan.

[DMHopper]

If you can distinguish between a US Attorney and an ambulance chaser, you can distinguish between a photographer and a paparazzi.

[eden4barack08]

So, would that make you 'the Royal Shakespeare Company' member, defending the porno star?

[DMHopper]

No, it would not. I maintain no pretenses that my work is on the level of someone like Herb Ritts or Yousuf Karsh. The analogy was to illustrate the size of the gap, in my opinion. Basically, it was not the best choice of ways to say that paparazzi are beneath porn stars.

[MiraMcB]

Sorry, Buddy. The moment you ID'd yourself as a photographer, your credibility with me went to zero. No offense, but...

Personally, I don't care if they were on public or private property. I think it should be illegal to take pictures of ANYONE in a situation where it can be assumed to be a private situation, i.e. when they are not WORKING, coming in or out of a courthouse, a red carpet, publicity or charity event, etc. If they are grocery shopping, mowing their lawn, eating dinner with friends, dropping the kids off at school, driving to work, or any other personal daily activity where an average person would consider it to be private, its OFF LIMITS. Period. These freaks shove their cameras into people's windshields when their trying to drive, for crying out loud.

[normathumb]

Nice opinion, but that is all it is. The law is very clear and has been for years. There is no right to privacy in a public space. If memory serves, Jackie Onassis was able to get an order of protection keeping Ron Gallela at a distance. It only applied to him and it did not prevent him from taking pictures. It only stipulated greater range. He bought a better lens. She and her kids were his chosen target. He persued her relentlessly, daily and it was essentially upheld by the courts, like it or not. No one said those particular freaks were were shoving their cameras into anyones windshield. They were taking pictures on a public beach. People take snapshots on public beaches all the time.

[Big0725]

They should have thrown the photographer in the ocean and saved the camera. At least the camera is useful.

[sallu]

Would you defend a pedophiles right to take zoom lense pictures at a public beach of little girls?

[mathme]

That's tricky, actually. Is it illegal? I mean, there are rights and then there is what's right... But, you know, let's not drag the lens into this... or even the lense. The lens did nothing wrong and my lenses are feeling kind of badly about it... I'm going to be up all night consoling my 80-200 f/2.8... it's very sensitive. Not as sensitive as the 50 f/1.4, though, but the 50mm can't read.

[rmetz74]

There was actually a case just like that, and the court upheld his right to take the pictures.

And everyone agreed it was wrong anyway.

Just like paparazzi.

[spbm]

i guess this is you andy warhol gibberish imatation? guess what, your 15 minutes are up.

[pzdoff]

"I just drink beer and party"....­...kind of sounds like the deserter in chief when he was a youth.....­..you know forty.....­forty one.....fo­rty two years old.

[jowilli]

Beat up over Matthew McConaughey? They should have found real actors to harrass ( maybe real actors have better security and their own private beaches) then the beating may have been worth it..