Paparazzo in scrum with David Beckham's security guards?

A paparazzo who pursued David Beckham and his family through the streets of Beverly Hills ended up on the losing end of a confrontation with the soccer star's security detail over the weekend, absorbing as many as 10 blows to the head and body, his boss told The Times.

Francois Navarre, co-owner of the X-17 online photo agency, said one of his photographers was tailing Beckham near Beverly Drive and Little Santa Monica Boulevard about 4 p.m. Sunday when the footballer apparently decided he was tired of the unwanted attention. Beckham stopped his car and confronted the pap, whom he ordered out of the car, Navarre said.

Moments later, Navarre said, the soccer star's security detail moved in, administering a beat-down and tossing his camera in the garbage. There were reports that the photographer was also handcuffed. Beverly Hills police said they are trying to sort out the situation, although Navarre said there is videotape of the incident, which another photographer gave to police, that has not been returned.

The incident is the latest chapter in a string of recent dust-ups involving celebrities and the paparazzi. Last month, a security guard for Victoria Beckham got into a shoving match with a photographer after she was surrounded by a large group of fans and photographers at LAX. No arrests resulted from that scrum. Rapper Kanye West was arrested in September on suspicion on felony vandalism after he smashed a camera and his manager tried to confiscate a video camera. Prosecutors however, did not pursue charges in that case.

A bodyguard for Britney Spears mixed it up with a photographer last June, as 230 people mobbed the pop star at LAX. Her sister, Jamie Lynn Spears, got a similar reception at the airport after giving birth. Six airport police officers were brought in to handle the unruly mob, although Jamie Lynn Spears made a clean getaway with the help of her doppelganger, who took some of them in another direction.

--Andrew Blankstein

Los Angeles Times file photo

Comments

[JohnRJ08]

Chances are, this "paparazzo" idiot deserved it. If these jerks are the real-life equivalent of screaming "fire" in a crowded theater, nothing is. They do not warrant constitutional protections. They endanger the subjects they're pursuing, as well as everybody else in the vicinity. Two-legged cockroaches.

[James Sullivan]

I don't like Beckham and I think soccer is a game for girls but I applaud anybody who kicks the snot out of a paparazzo.

[Phillip Johnson]

In a turn of peotic justice, Beckham should have taken pictures of the bloodied and bruised papparazzi and sold them back to the magazine he worlks for. Instead of whining like the offensive and pernicious thug he is, the papparazzi should be grateful to still be alive.

[Marc]

Good!!!

[Ryan]

I have a pretty hard time feeling sorry for the paparazzi. I DO believe in freedom of the press, but celebrities also have a right to privacy. If someone followed you and your family everywhere you went, got very close to you, flashed cameras in your face and shouted things at you to get a reaction, you would probably get sick of it too. At some point, you would probably want to pull the car over and take your frustration out on one of the people harassing you.

[mkevinf]

I understand the visceral reactions to the paparazi, but does anyone have an expectation of privacy when they are driving down a public road? Of course not, nor do they have that in any public space.

Glory has it's costs.

[David Blackburn]

Bravo! I wish people would stop buying the trash these people put out. Take some photos from the stands.

[Strict Constitution]

Nowhere in the Constitution does it say a guy with a camera can drive illegally to photograph someone.

Take the Constitution argument somewhere else.

This guy got what he deserved.

[Tom]

Another celebrity who thinks they are above the law.

If you don't like attention, don't seek fame and fortune and live in the media capital of the world......
Interesting that Beckham isn't man enough to do his own fighting....

[TellyBubba]

Very simple solution: Celebrities start their own cooperatively owned photo agency and flood the market with candid shots of the highest demand stars, and undersell everybody else, thus driving down the price and boring the public via too much exposure. No revenue means paps won't chase because it's not worth it and too many pictures means public will lose interest in a particular celeb. Simple

[Tom]

To poster "Strict Constitution"

Where in this article does it say the Photographer was driving illegally??

[Alexandra]

I cannot see the free-speech issue here either, but I see that pictures of celebrities are obviously a huge market. But I am wondering why following someone around all the time, taking pictures of them and not stopping when asked to is not considered stalking?
Besides, if the guy hadn't turned the video over to the police, he could have made money from that too. So doesn't seem to be particularly bright, unless, maybe he was asking for it an provoking so he could sue?

[r Tray]

Not a big fan of Beckham, but have rarely (or rather, never) heard of a situation where the paparazzi weren't the culprit.
The world would be a much better place without them.
It is by far the lowest form of a "profession" out there.

[TANYA LEE]

MR. BECKHAM YOUR CELEBRITY COMES WITH AWANTED ATTENTION

[JohnRJ08]

Celebrité is a dicey thing. Most celebrities do not seek out fame. It is imposed on them by fawning fans and an enabling tabloid press. Most celebrities live in secure, gated communities and, like Beckham, have bodyguards. These are NOT people who are actively seeking attention when they go out to dinner or to see a movie. Beckham plays soccer and he's pretty good at it. Plus he has a famous wife. Still, neither of them chose their professions because they wanted to be "famous". Rich maybe, but not famous. It is a specious argument to say that these people invited the attention of paparazzi. People who achieve notoriety deserve the same rights to privacy that us nobodys take for granted. It's pretty easy to sit there in the safetyand solitude of your home and say that this is the price people must pay for their fame.

[lalandjunkie]

Everyone is entitled to their privacy, there should be an appropriate time and place for publicity. I don't agree with the argument that celebrity entertainers and athletes should have to put up with outrageous intrusions into their personal life. They made a living by being good at what they do and performing at a high level. Why should they have to pay for that with snooty photographers following their every move? How come we don't follow the best teachers, doctors, and lawyers around town while we're at it? Of course as long as there is a demand for these pics, there will always be a supply. So the problem lies with our cultural obsession with celebs more than anything.

[Gail from Boston, MA, U.S.A.]

These little cockroach amateur photogs only make real money when they get something "new", correct? So I suggest that all celebrities follow in the footsteps of the brilliant Scottish actor, David Tennant. Whenever he goes out in public (in his personal life) he always wear the EXACT SAME CLOTHING. It's a uniform of sorts: jeans, Abercrombie Fitch hoodie, Chuck Taylor hightops, and a baseball cap. This might be a bit of a problem for the fashion-addicted Beckhams....but hey, it works. Try finding a photo of David Tennant in the British tabloids -- they are extremely rare, because he always wears that uniform! He's a genius!

[Somebody]

LOL to Gail from Boston, that is quite a brilliant idea! ;D. However..I do agree with the comments that the celebs are entitled to privacy too..and that they are celebrities and famous because they are really good at what they are doing..that's why they have got to be famous in the first place. As for the Beckhams, I agree with a comment that they are doing what they do coz they love it and they love the money, but not so much with the glamour and the "famousness" that comes with it. But they have to deal with it because they love their jobs, but to a certain extend of course. As for this paps' incident..I believe the paparazi himself has crossed the "invisible" lines existing between him and celebrities, otherwise Beckham wouldn't do what he did. And this is not the first time Beckham has done this confrontation with paparazis, as he had confronted the paps like this while he was in Madrid coz the paps has cross his line - following his family and his children even in their school and stayed in front of his house 24/7 - and like this current incident, Beckham's bodyguards takeover from him back then. It is not unmanly at all, it's just that the Beckhams bodyguards are so good they don't/didn't even let Beckham to do/get any harms on his own. Clearly the pap has never done homework before "chasing" the Beckhams and has underestimated them and their securities to cross his line as he did. Well...the paps really deserved it. Becks 1 (2 actually if the Madrid's paps were included ;p) - Paparazi 0.

[Sherman Tank]

Interesting the extent the Times will go to, to censor posts they don't want to aire.

[Linda]

Paparazzi are stalkers. Just because they have a camera doesn't mean to say its right. I've heard their defence is that they're 'just doing their job'. What a crummy job where you make another person or family's life a misery because you're on their tail day and night and confront them to see a reaction so you can sell a photo. Its uncivilised and rude.

[aida]

ooooooooooooooh i love u beckham soooooooooo much (kisssssssssssssses) u are the best ur rock woooooow