Photographer crashes car into Linsey Lohan

I usually try to avoid the entertainment news around these parts but this is just too good to skip. In fact, I’m just going to point you directly to the LAPD press release:

An entertainment photographer, Galo Cesar Ramirez, 24 years, was arrested last night, May 31, 2005, after he crashed his brown 2005 Mercury Monterey minivan into a black Mercedes SL65 coupe, driven by 18-year-old actress Lindsey Lohan, in the 8200 block of West 3rd Street.

Just before 6 PM, Lohan was driving east on 3rd Street, from the city of Beverly Hills. Ramirez was following her, trying to get a picture. Lohan made a U-turn, just inside the city limits of Los Angeles, near Sweetzer Street. Actions by Ramirez in the minivan resulted in the minivan striking Lohan’s driver’s door.

Los Angeles police officers investigating the collision determined the circumstances warranted Ramirez’ arrest for assault with a deadly weapon, the weapon being the minivan. Evidence showed Ramirez’ actions were intentional, rather than accidental, making the incident criminal.

8 Replies to “Photographer crashes car into Linsey Lohan”

  1. I always question authority. So if LAPD says “Evidence showed” .. I would interpret this as .. “we choose to believe.”

    I always give people with “least power”(often the most vulnerable) the benefit of the doubt.

    What pressure would the LAPD feel from the photographer? propably none.

    What pressure would the LAPD feel from the actress? the first thing that comes to mind is a big fat lawyer scrutinizing every step he/she makes with regards to his/her client.

    So I suspect that the LAPD would be biased against the least of power.

    I don’t think how anyone, much less a professional photographer, would intentionally collide with someone very wealthy and powerful ..just to take pictures worth a few hundread dollars.

    Everyone involved has suffered.. I see little good in this incidence.

    Car accidents are very dangerous .. and every incident is cause for concern. I don’t see how this kind of news, even if under the category of “entertainment news”.. can be seen as “too good to skip.” Sorry to sound like a prude.. but I don’t like it (specially in these war years), when tragedy/ or near trajedy.. is seen as something “too good to skip”.

  2. Lit teachers everywhere are weeping over this sentence:

    “Actions by Ramirez in the minivan resulted in the minivan striking Lohan’s driver’s door.”

    Oh – and regarding the first comment here . . . I’m no expert, but I think the photos are likely worth more than just a few hundred dollars (especially given the sensational story resulting from their capture). Many of those photogs are ruthless. I don’t know what actually happens, but he probably isn’t quite the poor-soul you’d want him to be.

  3. I took a UCLA Ext. photojournalism class once, and the topic of celebrity photography came up every once in a while. I got the impression from people with direct experience at magazines like Us and Star that were it not for the considerable commerce resulting from their behavior, some photographers would be classified as stalkers and perpetrators of criminal harassment. Breaking into private property, following celebs into bathroom stalls, and yes, chasing people in cars seem to be accepted practice for a few celebrity photographers.

  4. I sense some deference to LAPD and stereotype of entertainment photographers as ill intentioned folks.

    I see them primarily as people simply trying to make a living, and secondarily as people trying to push social boundaries for that extra cash.

    If things have gotten out of hand.. the place where I would look for solutions are the people with most power (they are often the ones with most opportunities to improve things): the magazine companies that profit the most from the pictures. I would suggest that Mag. companies should pool together and hire a whole bunch of photographers and pay them a good salary without pressure to take any kind of pictures that would lead to risky situations. These companies would go outside their photographers in minimal of cases.

    So if there are 1000 entertainment photographers today, the pool of photographers could be 1500. And companies would be liable for damages that resulted from the photographer’s behavior. (I wonder if the tabloid mags would still want photos that call for stalking and harrassment).

    Whenever some “news” incident happens, I too often see disproportionate responsibility placed on individuals, rather than on a social system that set people up for these incidences.

Comments are closed.