Malibu surfers attack paparazzi

AirCav wrote:

Wow Ticker , I can't possibly deal with such a well thought out , articulate , pithy retort.
If I am a MF it's your mother I'm F'ing. LOL!
Why would you say that about your Mom. Your disgusting. LMAO!

AirCav wrote:

Wow Ticker , I can't possibly deal with such a well thought out , articulate , pithy retort.
If I am a MF it's your mother I'm F'ing. LOL!
Why would you say that about your Mom. Your disgusting. LMAO!

Lawyer in 6 months wrote:

Actually, Acutally got property law and the Coastal Act completely wrong.
The mean high tide line, the boundary of the public sand, can only be determined by survey of the State Lands Commission. No such survey has EVER been done on a California beach. That means the actual property line is indeterminate, and if it can be shown that the so-called dry sand has never been fenced off or successfully defended as no trespassing signs, the public has a public easement on that land.
"The Coastal Act was enacted to ensure that people did not profit from the beach..." Oh reallly? That's funny.
As I read Section 30001.5(c) of the act, as enacted in 1978, it says the Legislative finding is that the act must "Maximize public access to and along the coast and maximize public recreational opportunities in the coastal zone consistent with sound resources conservation principles and constitutionally protected rights of private property owners."
You say " this type of intrusion of other's privacy and relaxation is tolerated to an extent." It's tolerated because the beach -- dry sand included -- is public property, and there is no expectation of privacy there. Sorry. That's the law. That's what the sheriff said (spokesman Steve Whitmore, City News Service interview, last Tuesday).
You say "that line was crossed and continues to be crossed once again in the name of profit. " Guess what, Actually. Gathering news is a constitutionally-protected activity. You may not like it, but thge courts have ruled again and again that such activity is protected.
In fact, the California Constitution specifically allows newsgathering and other constitutionally-protected activities to occur ON PRIVATE PROPERTY if that private land is open to the general public. Look it up: it's the famous Pruneyard Shopping Center case.
You say "Paradise Cove will soon have to shut it's access policy if this continues, they will own the entire liability if anyone gets hurt...not the surfers. Paradise Cove is allowing an attractive nuisance to continue without abatement, they have the responsibility to control the guests that pay to access the beach."
Let them try. They will lose any lawsuit if they start denying access to their facilities based on constitutionally-protected activities that are occurring down the cove, on public land.
You say we should learn the Coastal Act. OK, big shot, some of us seem to know just where to find it: http://www.coastal.ca.gov/coastact.pdf .
Actually, Actually, you are full of it.

usc steve wrote:

ALL THIS BACK AND FORTH STUFF SOUNDS LIKE YOU TWO WANNA MAKE OUT !!!!
<quoted text>

Future Primitive wrote:

<quoted text>Id expect nothing less from one of my turds. If you werent so stupid youd realise I spent time exposing him as a fraud! You could be next chump!

usc steve wrote:

get over yourself ......exposing him as a fraud ..does that make you think youve accomplished something ( maybe you can get a part time job at DATELINE or 20/20 )...sounds like you have your own pathetic issues to deal with
<quoted text>

john wrote:

<quoted text>
You spelled realize wrong stupid. Don't be so proud of making a moron out to be a moron in a chatroom, get a life loser.

john wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you a kid? If your friends (assuming you have 1 or two,) ask you how your day went do you say, "dude, you should seen what i wrote to this one guy on the internet, totally burned him, hardyharhar." Go find a chick, or a guy if that's what your into, get a job, do something besides throw the same insults you've thought were funny since 1st grade. Damn you're pathetic, I'd wish you luck in your life but you'd still be a loser.

john wrote:

<quoted text>
You spelled realize wrong ....

Pogo wrote:

<quoted text>
You're barmy mate, you don't recognise English when you see it. Realise is a common British spelling of the word found in many dictionaries.
Have a draught and relax. If you're going to analyse someone's spelling study up, don't be an arse.

nice guy surfer wrote:

This kind of stuff happens to anyone who tries to photograph the surf at Lunada Bay in Palos Verdes Estates. No celebrity or paparazzi needed. For years the PVE surf punks have threatened photographers and slashed tires etc for photographing "their" surf. They also turn on surfers who aren't from their town and threaten them as well. "Localism" gets way out of hand in PVE and Malibu as well. Just a bunch of rich kids thinking they own the beach. I hope they all go to jail in this instance. Nobody likes the paparazzi, but their fame depends on them. They each need each other to survive.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surf_culture#Loc...

citz wrote:

any 5 gang members from LA would have no problem taking over that beach and send them boys home crying.

Doctor J wrote:

I wonder what Jeff Spicoli would have done.

Nat wrote:

226 posting on this surfer subject.
1 posting re; loan crisis in America.
How scary is that?