Billy the Kid Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Ed not allowed has recently admitted here on BC VOICE that he indeed was driving by Matt Ryan's home and snapped a picture of the Mayor. His motive and agenda appear to be fixated on Mayor Ryan. Below is the NYS law which covers stalking issues. Allow me , to be fixated on Ed for a moment and have a little survey. ---IS ED not allowed GUILTY ???? Section 120.45 Stalking in the fourth degree A person is guilty of stalking in the fourth degree when he or she intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and knows or reasonably should know that such conduct: 1. is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted; or Answer 1: I don't believe Ed is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted 2. causes material harm to the mental or emotional health of such person, where such conduct consists of following, telephoning or initiating communication or contact with such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct; or Answer 2: I think Ryan has already caused material harm to the mental or emotional health of himself so this one doesn't apply and he wasn't following him or trying to communicate with him, everyone knows that Ryan only talks to Tarik and himself when he is alone 3. is likely to cause such person to reasonably fear that his or her employment, business or career is threatened, where such conduct consists of appearing, telephoning or initiating communication or contact at such person's place of employment or business, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct. Answer 3: This is the only possibility that Ed could be considered to be stalking Mayor Matt, but when you look at the information about Ryan, his ethics, his past, his criminal history and what real damage the man is doing to the City of Binghamton, that Ed has brought public and kept in the faces of the citizens of Binghamton, I would more consider Ed a hero than a stalker! Stalking in the fourth degree is a class B misdemeanor. Funny you should bring this up when Ryan has so many past and present criminal activities under his belt, yet you insist on portraying him as the victim. Could it be that you are Ryan or one of his clan trying to divert attention from yourself once again? __________________________________________________________You Be The Judge So under the circumstances, I would have to say that No Ed is NOT GUILTY! Can we consider you a stalker, AFC might have issue with that???!!! A quote from one of your previous posts: "Good question .. But his whole house has been remodeled inside because I seen it ." What were you doing in there? Does Ryan know you were in there or were you there because you are Ryan? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 So under the circumstances, I would have to say that No Ed is NOT GUILTY! Can we consider you a stalker, AFC might have issue with that???!!! A quote from one of your previous posts: "Good question .. But his whole house has been remodeled inside because I seen it ." What were you doing in there? Does Ryan know you were in there or were you there because you are Ryan? you have been caught--again! @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 In response to this survey I started just for fun , BTK WROTE : So under the circumstances, I would have to say that No Ed is NOT GUILTY! Can we consider you a stalker, AFC might have issue with that???!!! A quote from one of your previous posts: "Good question .. But his whole house has been remodeled inside because I seen it ." What were you doing in there? Does Ryan know you were in there or were you there because you are Ryan? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ First of all you are totally entitled to your opinion and thanks for responding. However, your attempt to make myself look like the bad guy will not prevail. You are quoted , " can we consider you a stalker". You can consider me what ever you want. In doing so , you have reviled that BC VOICE has the capabilities of determining who has posted certain topics and particular comments under the guest status. Yes , I did , find enjoyment posting several comments criticizing AFC and putting the idiot in his place. Does that make me a stalker ? Do I drive by his home at least 8 times a day hoping to see him and then take pictures ? Absolutely not , it makes me wonder why you're part of AFC's and Ed's defence team , and that's your prerogative. May I speculate as to why and ask you a question ? Does having these idiots on BC VOICE boost the number of hits you receive ? Please don't take that offensively and I hope you take pride in the important position you choose. With that said , let me respond to your question as to why I was in Ryan's home . He did have the interior remodeled by a contractor that I was considering to do work for me . It was approximately 4 years ago , that individual ( the contractor ) took me into the home on Grand Blvd. , to show me his quality of work. It was an attempt on the contractors part to convince me , to hire him also. I don't believe Ryan was ever aware I was ever in his home , because he wasn't there at that time. I had to laugh at you for questioning me and accusing me of being Ryan. I personally feel that he and Ed are both idiots . I just can't see Ryan coming on BC VOICE and opening a can of worms . He may be stupid , but not that stupid. Let me put it this way , if Ryan was approved of an $80,000 loan to remodel his home and someone like myself could step forward with the information I just offered . Do you think Ryan would rat himself out ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 In response to this survey I started just for fun , BTK WROTE : So under the circumstances, I would have to say that No Ed is NOT GUILTY! Can we consider you a stalker, AFC might have issue with that???!!! A quote from one of your previous posts: "Good question .. But his whole house has been remodeled inside because I seen it ." What were you doing in there? Does Ryan know you were in there or were you there because you are Ryan? ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ First of all you are totally entitled to your opinion and thanks for responding. However, your attempt to make myself look like the bad guy will not prevail. You are quoted , " can we consider you a stalker". You can consider me what ever you want. In doing so , you have reviled that BC VOICE has the capabilities of determining who has posted certain topics and particular comments under the guest status. Yes , I did , find enjoyment posting several comments criticizing AFC and putting the idiot in his place. Does that make me a stalker ? Do I drive by his home at least 8 times a day hoping to see him and then take pictures ? Absolutely not , it makes me wonder why you're part of AFC's and Ed's defence team , and that's your prerogative. May I speculate as to why and ask you a question ? Does having these idiots on BC VOICE boost the number of hits you receive ? Please don't take that offensively and I hope you take pride in the important position you choose. With that said , let me respond to your question as to why I was in Ryan's home . He did have the interior remodeled by a contractor that I was considering to do work for me . It was approximately 4 years ago , that individual ( the contractor ) took me into the home on Grand Blvd. , to show me his quality of work. It was an attempt on the contractors part to convince me , to hire him also. I don't believe Ryan was ever aware I was ever in his home , because he wasn't there at that time. I had to laugh at you for questioning me and accusing me of being Ryan. I personally feel that he and Ed are both idiots . I just can't see Ryan coming on BC VOICE and opening a can of worms . He may be stupid , but not that stupid. Let me put it this way , if Ryan was approved of an $80,000 loan to remodel his home and someone like myself could step forward with the information I just offered . Do you think Ryan would rat himself out ? you overestimate ryan? YES HE IS THAT STUPID! you just don't know he is obsessed with bcvoice. he is on here all the time--all the time @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 you overestimate ryan? YES HE IS THAT STUPID! you just don't know he is obsessed with bcvoice. he is on here all the time--all the time @ Ok then , I will agree with you , that he COULD be that stupid. I didn't vote for him. Did you ? @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Below are the answers BTK gave to the thread I posted ... If I may , I'd like to comment on answer number 3...... A person is guilty of stalking in the fourth degree when he or she intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and knows or reasonably should know that such conduct: 1. is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted; or Answer 1: I don't believe Ed is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted 2. causes material harm to the mental or emotional health of such person, where such conduct consists of following, telephoning or initiating communication or contact with such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct; or Answer 2: I think Ryan has already caused material harm to the mental or emotional health of himself so this one doesn't apply and he wasn't following him or trying to communicate with him, everyone knows that Ryan only talks to Tarik and himself when he is alone 3. is likely to cause such person to reasonably fear that his or her employment, business or career is threatened, where such conduct consists of appearing, telephoning or initiating communication or contact at such person's place of employment or business, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct. Answer 3: This is the only possibility that Ed could be considered to be stalking Mayor Matt, but when you look at the information about Ryan, his ethics, his past, his criminal history and what real damage the man is doing to the City of Binghamton, that Ed has brought public and kept in the faces of the citizens of Binghamton, I would more consider Ed a hero than a stalker! *********************** Billy , here are some facts you should consider . First of all , a jury would not hear of Ryan's past or nor would Ryan have to testify . It would be tough to find a jury , unfamiliar with Ryan , but it would have to be done . They ( the jury ) would only be asked to consider the charges ( if Ed were to charged ) in question . I respect your opinion Billy , but if you didn't know Ryan or Ed , you then may find Ed guilty as charged . I'm not knocking Ed down , for his dislike of the Mayor . The point I'm trying to make is this , Ed is a complete idiot for posting that picture , then admitting to driving past 8 times a day and then taking the photo . I hope he can learn from what I've posted here , because if he were to be charged , he may very well be convicted . Thanks for allowing me to voice my mind and have a good day Billy ....... @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Below are the answers BTK gave to the thread I posted ... If I may , I'd like to comment on answer number 3...... A person is guilty of stalking in the fourth degree when he or she intentionally, and for no legitimate purpose, engages in a course of conduct directed at a specific person, and knows or reasonably should know that such conduct: 1. is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted; or Answer 1: I don't believe Ed is likely to cause reasonable fear of material harm to the physical health, safety or property of such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted 2. causes material harm to the mental or emotional health of such person, where such conduct consists of following, telephoning or initiating communication or contact with such person, a member of such person's immediate family or a third party with whom such person is acquainted, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct; or Answer 2: I think Ryan has already caused material harm to the mental or emotional health of himself so this one doesn't apply and he wasn't following him or trying to communicate with him, everyone knows that Ryan only talks to Tarik and himself when he is alone 3. is likely to cause such person to reasonably fear that his or her employment, business or career is threatened, where such conduct consists of appearing, telephoning or initiating communication or contact at such person's place of employment or business, and the actor was previously clearly informed to cease that conduct. Answer 3: This is the only possibility that Ed could be considered to be stalking Mayor Matt, but when you look at the information about Ryan, his ethics, his past, his criminal history and what real damage the man is doing to the City of Binghamton, that Ed has brought public and kept in the faces of the citizens of Binghamton, I would more consider Ed a hero than a stalker! *********************** Billy , here are some facts you should consider . First of all , a jury would not hear of Ryan's past or nor would Ryan have to testify . It would be tough to find a jury , unfamiliar with Ryan , but it would have to be done . They ( the jury ) would only be asked to consider the charges ( if Ed were to charged ) in question . I respect your opinion Billy , but if you didn't know Ryan or Ed , you then may find Ed guilty as charged . I'm not knocking Ed down , for his dislike of the Mayor . The point I'm trying to make is this , Ed is a complete idiot for posting that picture , then admitting to driving past 8 times a day and then taking the photo . I hope he can learn from what I've posted here , because if he were to be charged , he may very well be convicted . Thanks for allowing me to voice my mind and have a good day Billy ....... @ This is ridiculous! Of course, anybody can be charged for anything at anytime. But what exactly would we be charging Ed with? You think because you post the definition of a statute and said someone violated it that that would make it so. NO If Matt Ryan is a victim in this case as you are claiming: 1) Was he aware of Ed taking the picture. If not, then the question becomes: Can a victim be a victim without knowledge of a crime. I say no! Then where is the crime or violation? 2) Is the mayor aware of Ed's postings on bcvoice? And if he is, Is he bothered by it? If he is aware, how is he aware? Is he on bcvoice posting too? Why hasn't he called the cops if he feels threatened? Why would he feel threatened to being publicly criticized on the bcvoice. Afterall he is a public official. Is it illegal to criticize a public official on a chat board incessantly? A lot of these questions you posters should be asking yourselves, especially if you are going to play pretend attorney by posting statutes. You people are operating under the assumption that because Ed posts a lot about the mayor on bcvoice, then he is automatically guilty of harassment for allegedly posting pictures of the mayor in front of the mayors house on grand blvd. It is a false assumption to begin with. You need to separate the issues. Just as the mayors past cannot be brought forth in court, it is unlikely that ed's past behavior will be allowed in court, unless it fits into an exception. Ed cannot be guilty of harassment because no violation of the law occurred. Taking a picture in and of itself is not harassment. If you don't believe me, check out the paparazzi and the movie stars. Under all of your analysis, these paparazzi would spend their lives in jail. It is my legal opinion, that Ed is NOT an idiot for posting the pictures and, he is not an idiot for admitting driving on Grand blvd 8 times a day. ED HAS COMMITTED NO CRIME or violation. The last time I checked this is a free country and the Mayor does not own Grand Blvd. I do not know Ed and I do not know Ryan, but I know the law. And as I said, anybody can be charged for anything at any point in time--especially with a few witnesses. But it is unlikely that Ed or anyone for that matter would be charged or especially be convicted with taking a picture and posting it on a public chat board. There is nothing in the penal law that makes Ed's behavior a violation of the law. There is a lot more to say, but I have to go YOU PEOPLE NEED TO CHILL! @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Please allow me to commit on the following post made by a guest : I do not know Ed and I do not know Ryan, but I know the law. And as I said, anybody can be charged for anything at any point in time--especially with a few witnesses. But it is unlikely that Ed or anyone for that matter would be charged or especially be convicted with taking a picture and posting it on a public chat board. There is nothing in the penal law that makes Ed's behavior a violation of the law. ********************************************************** You're quoted as saying " anybody can be charged for anything at any point in time -- especially with a few witnesses ".. This is exactly how Ed , explained the charges that were placed on him in Canada . Is this just a coincidence ? Furthermore , I feel it's a very ridiculous statement , to say the least. Maybe , you should look at the statistic rate of convictions as opposed to acquittals in this county. Are most folks being falsely accused ? You're quoted as saying " There is nothing in the penal law that makes Ed's behavior a violation of the law " If you worked in the D.A.'s office , I may find it , easier to swallow that statement .. However , if you look at the photo again , it appears the car in which the photo was taken from . is positioned in the middle of the road . Therefore , when Ed admitted not only taking the photo , but using a cell phone to do so , he voluntarily admitted his guilt of a ticketable offence . ( using a cell phone while driving ) And , I agree , this doesn't make Ed a criminal , or a bad guy . It does however suggest , that he's more than willing to go to extremes , in his attempts to bury Ryan. I 'm very aware of Ryan's past and am not here to defend him. I personally feel , that both are pukes and am still not convinced Ed , is not guilty of stalking. So , I respect your comment , and reserve the right to agree - to disagree , as you can see , it hasn't changed my opinions at all . Create a peaceful day for yourself ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 Please allow me to commit on the following post made by a guest : I do not know Ed and I do not know Ryan, but I know the law. And as I said, anybody can be charged for anything at any point in time--especially with a few witnesses. But it is unlikely that Ed or anyone for that matter would be charged or especially be convicted with taking a picture and posting it on a public chat board. There is nothing in the penal law that makes Ed's behavior a violation of the law. ********************************************************** You're quoted as saying " anybody can be charged for anything at any point in time -- especially with a few witnesses ".. This is exactly how Ed , explained the charges that were placed on him in Canada . Is this just a coincidence ? Furthermore , I feel it's a very ridiculous statement , to say the least. Maybe , you should look at the statistic rate of convictions as opposed to acquittals in this county. Are most folks being falsely accused ? You're quoted as saying " There is nothing in the penal law that makes Ed's behavior a violation of the law " If you worked in the D.A.'s office , I may find it , easier to swallow that statement .. However , if you look at the photo again , it appears the car in which the photo was taken from . is positioned in the middle of the road . Therefore , when Ed admitted not only taking the photo , but using a cell phone to do so , he voluntarily admitted his guilt of a ticketable offence . ( using a cell phone while driving ) And , I agree , this doesn't make Ed a criminal , or a bad guy . It does however suggest , that he's more than willing to go to extremes , in his attempts to bury Ryan. I 'm very aware of Ryan's past and am not here to defend him. I personally feel , that both are pukes and am still not convinced Ed , is not guilty of stalking. So , I respect your comment , and reserve the right to agree - to disagree , as you can see , it hasn't changed my opinions at all . Create a peaceful day for yourself ............ Well spoken MR LAWYER ! Give it up DELETED because we don't want to hear your DELETED anymore Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 he can't be a lawyer. if he is he is a quack! CLUELESS!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 he can't be a lawyer. if he is he is a quack! CLUELESS!!!!!!! Your correct to assume I'm not a lawyer . Keep guessing ...... If you get it right ? I will make it a point to let you know . One clue for you is - Your headed in the wrong direction !!! @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navin R Johnson Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 This is ridiculous! Of course, anybody can be charged for anything at anytime. But what exactly would we be charging Ed with? You think because you post the definition of a statute and said someone violated it that that would make it so. NO If Matt Ryan is a victim in this case as you are claiming: 1) Was he aware of Ed taking the picture. If not, then the question becomes: Can a victim be a victim without knowledge of a crime. I say no! Then where is the crime or violation? 2) Is the mayor aware of Ed's postings on bcvoice? And if he is, Is he bothered by it? If he is aware, how is he aware? Is he on bcvoice posting too? Why hasn't he called the cops if he feels threatened? Why would he feel threatened to being publicly criticized on the bcvoice. Afterall he is a public official. Is it illegal to criticize a public official on a chat board incessantly? A lot of these questions you posters should be asking yourselves, especially if you are going to play pretend attorney by posting statutes. You people are operating under the assumption that because Ed posts a lot about the mayor on bcvoice, then he is automatically guilty of harassment for allegedly posting pictures of the mayor in front of the mayors house on grand blvd. It is a false assumption to begin with. You need to separate the issues. Just as the mayors past cannot be brought forth in court, it is unlikely that ed's past behavior will be allowed in court, unless it fits into an exception. Ed cannot be guilty of harassment because no violation of the law occurred. Taking a picture in and of itself is not harassment. If you don't believe me, check out the paparazzi and the movie stars. Under all of your analysis, these paparazzi would spend their lives in jail. It is my legal opinion, that Ed is NOT an idiot for posting the pictures and, he is not an idiot for admitting driving on Grand blvd 8 times a day. ED HAS COMMITTED NO CRIME or violation. The last time I checked this is a free country and the Mayor does not own Grand Blvd. I do not know Ed and I do not know Ryan, but I know the law. And as I said, anybody can be charged for anything at any point in time--especially with a few witnesses. But it is unlikely that Ed or anyone for that matter would be charged or especially be convicted with taking a picture and posting it on a public chat board. There is nothing in the penal law that makes Ed's behavior a violation of the law. There is a lot more to say, but I have to go YOU PEOPLE NEED TO CHILL! @ yes you are right...there is a lot more to say. I was impressed by your intelligent and adult like response to the topic and your input on this issue. However you lost almost all of your points with the last comment mr caps lock. But let me take a minute and address your points. I doubt that ryan was aware that ed was across the street taking pictures, however based on his not so sublte way of harassing the mayor, including sending numerous emails to the city, posting thousands of times on here and the psb blaming ryan for everything and anything negative that happens in the city. He also started his mayor failure list and posted it on here. He has a website that lists all alegations against the mayor going back to 1983. (but funny there is no mention of ed's alleged harassment, weapons and drug charges in canada) But given the history of ed against the mayor, I would be willing to bet the farm that ryan knows that ed is following him. Maybe someone even notified the mayor of the picture. Either way, this has the potential of something coming out of this. Yes you can have a crime if the vitim is unaware of it. Actually most crimes the victim is not aware of the crime until the crime is committed. Lets look at identity theft. most of the time the victim is not aware until the crime occured. so yes you can be a victim of a crim and not know it. Taking a picture of someone is not a crime of itself. but when the picture is taken by someone who admits that he drives by the victims house 8 times a day, (i will address that too) and that person has written thousands of critical posts about the man and even comments on his anatomy, there may indeed be grounds for at least a restraining order. Now back to driving on grand 8 times a day. Does anyone else seem to think that is extreme? here is exact words "As it happens I drive back and forth along Grand Boulevard maybe 8 times a day some days, maybe more, it is the fastest way to get from the West Side to Willow St. in JC. Ryan happenned to be there as I went by the first time. The second time I had my camera ready in case he was still there. He was.... " 8 times a day or more?????? the west side to willow st in jc this is the fastest way??? I would assume ed drives from the bates troy on laurel st to the puppet theater. there is no way that is more convenietnt way than main st. why would you choose to drive another way than the most convenient way? oh yea to drive by the mayors house. I know if i had to drive back and forth 8 times or more every day, i would not be happy. how does he have the time to post all the time or to work? So finally again pictures alone may not constitute a violation, but pictures + past history+ obsession + harassing emails+purposely driving by the house of your "target" may equal a violation or crime. I don't know for sure if there is enough evidence and if this is something that would hold up in a court case. However I feel this should be investigated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 yes you are right...there is a lot more to say. I was impressed by your intelligent and adult like response to the topic and your input on this issue. However you lost almost all of your points with the last comment mr caps lock. But let me take a minute and address your points. I doubt that ryan was aware that ed was across the street taking pictures, however based on his not so sublte way of harassing the mayor, including sending numerous emails to the city, posting thousands of times on here and the psb blaming ryan for everything and anything negative that happens in the city. He also started his mayor failure list and posted it on here. He has a website that lists all alegations against the mayor going back to 1983. (but funny there is no mention of ed's alleged harassment, weapons and drug charges in canada) But given the history of ed against the mayor, I would be willing to bet the farm that ryan knows that ed is following him. Maybe someone even notified the mayor of the picture. Either way, this has the potential of something coming out of this. Yes you can have a crime if the vitim is unaware of it. Actually most crimes the victim is not aware of the crime until the crime is committed. Lets look at identity theft. most of the time the victim is not aware until the crime occured. so yes you can be a victim of a crim and not know it. Taking a picture of someone is not a crime of itself. but when the picture is taken by someone who admits that he drives by the victims house 8 times a day, (i will address that too) and that person has written thousands of critical posts about the man and even comments on his anatomy, there may indeed be grounds for at least a restraining order. Now back to driving on grand 8 times a day. Does anyone else seem to think that is extreme? here is exact words "As it happens I drive back and forth along Grand Boulevard maybe 8 times a day some days, maybe more, it is the fastest way to get from the West Side to Willow St. in JC. Ryan happenned to be there as I went by the first time. The second time I had my camera ready in case he was still there. He was.... " 8 times a day or more?????? the west side to willow st in jc this is the fastest way??? I would assume ed drives from the bates troy on laurel st to the puppet theater. there is no way that is more convenietnt way than main st. why would you choose to drive another way than the most convenient way? oh yea to drive by the mayors house. I know if i had to drive back and forth 8 times or more every day, i would not be happy. how does he have the time to post all the time or to work? So finally again pictures alone may not constitute a violation, but pictures + past history+ obsession + harassing emails+purposely driving by the house of your "target" may equal a violation or crime. I don't know for sure if there is enough evidence and if this is something that would hold up in a court case. However I feel this should be investigated. Poptart -- You shed some light on the topic from a different angle. It is true , a victim is often unaware that a crime has been committed against them. If a person is murdered , they too aren't aware of anything - anymore. They don't have to be alive to press charges. You and all readers including myself , may be surprised to find out that an investigation could be happening as we type. I look forward to meeting you at the Legion if you intend on being there. I'm also excited to meet Ed in person and may just reveal my true identity at that point in time. At this point in time , I'm unable to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 yes you are right...there is a lot more to say. I was impressed by your intelligent and adult like response to the topic and your input on this issue. However you lost almost all of your points with the last comment mr caps lock. But let me take a minute and address your points. I doubt that ryan was aware that ed was across the street taking pictures, however based on his not so sublte way of harassing the mayor, including sending numerous emails to the city, posting thousands of times on here and the psb blaming ryan for everything and anything negative that happens in the city. He also started his mayor failure list and posted it on here. He has a website that lists all alegations against the mayor going back to 1983. (but funny there is no mention of ed's alleged harassment, weapons and drug charges in canada) But given the history of ed against the mayor, I would be willing to bet the farm that ryan knows that ed is following him. Maybe someone even notified the mayor of the picture. Either way, this has the potential of something coming out of this. Yes you can have a crime if the vitim is unaware of it. Actually most crimes the victim is not aware of the crime until the crime is committed. Lets look at identity theft. most of the time the victim is not aware until the crime occured. so yes you can be a victim of a crim and not know it. Taking a picture of someone is not a crime of itself. but when the picture is taken by someone who admits that he drives by the victims house 8 times a day, (i will address that too) and that person has written thousands of critical posts about the man and even comments on his anatomy, there may indeed be grounds for at least a restraining order. Now back to driving on grand 8 times a day. Does anyone else seem to think that is extreme? here is exact words "As it happens I drive back and forth along Grand Boulevard maybe 8 times a day some days, maybe more, it is the fastest way to get from the West Side to Willow St. in JC. Ryan happenned to be there as I went by the first time. The second time I had my camera ready in case he was still there. He was.... " 8 times a day or more?????? the west side to willow st in jc this is the fastest way??? I would assume ed drives from the bates troy on laurel st to the puppet theater. there is no way that is more convenietnt way than main st. why would you choose to drive another way than the most convenient way? oh yea to drive by the mayors house. I know if i had to drive back and forth 8 times or more every day, i would not be happy. how does he have the time to post all the time or to work? So finally again pictures alone may not constitute a violation, but pictures + past history+ obsession + harassing emails+purposely driving by the house of your "target" may equal a violation or crime. I don't know for sure if there is enough evidence and if this is something that would hold up in a court case. However I feel this should be investigated. OMG, you people are too dumb for words. Now it is not a normal thing for me to refer to people as dumb, but in this instance you people deserve it! dumb, dumb, dumb!!! there are no other words! DUMB! Ed, i agree with the above post--not this immediate one that I quoting! YOU HAVE NOT COMMITTED ANY CRIME. I am sure you know that. you are a smart man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 10, 2008 Report Share Posted April 10, 2008 OMG, you people are too dumb for words. Now it is not a normal thing for me to refer to people as dumb, but in this instance you people deserve it! dumb, dumb, dumb!!! there are no other words! DUMB! Ed, i agree with the above post--not this immediate one that I quoting! YOU HAVE NOT COMMITTED ANY CRIME. I am sure you know that. you are a smart man. Ed is a very intelligent man , who may have committed a crime. It's a shame that he allows his obsession ( Mayor Ryan ) to interfere with his true potential in life. I wish the best for him , he's a nice guy that has a mental problem. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Navin R Johnson Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 OMG, you people are too dumb for words. Now it is not a normal thing for me to refer to people as dumb, but in this instance you people deserve it! dumb, dumb, dumb!!! there are no other words! DUMB! Ed, i agree with the above post--not this immediate one that I quoting! YOU HAVE NOT COMMITTED ANY CRIME. I am sure you know that. you are a smart man. another intelligent response. Great rebuttal. if you read the post that i stated before, i am not sure if any crime was comnitted. Yes ed is a smart man. he is smart enough to know how to manipulate the system and he knows from first hand experience how far to push the envelope. he has done it numerous times before and has been accused of similar tactics in canada. it is plain as day that he has crossed the line of commone sense and rational behaivor. I do believe an investigation should be done to see if there was any criminal intent. @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ed Arzouian Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Poptart, you are truly an idiot. You want an investigation! Do you want to jail every paparazzi and TV cameraman sitting on a curb waiting for somebody to leave their house! God, you are ridiculous. Investigate away moron..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Who's ridiculous? Do you want to jail every paparazzi and TV cameraman sitting on a curb waiting for somebody to leave their house! @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 I am probaby only one of a few people that actually LIKE what Ed posts. He keeps us informed. At least he has FACTS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Personally I like this picture of Matt Ryan much better but you can't hit a home run every time you go to bat: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 I am probaby only one of a few people that actually LIKE what Ed posts. He keeps us informed. At least he has FACTS. I like what he posts when it new stuff and my favorite meal is meatloaf but , I get sick of of eating meatloaf everyday. It's the same ole repetitive crap from Ed everyday that I'm sick of too . @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Poptart, you are truly an idiot. You want an investigation! Do you want to jail every paparazzi and TV cameraman sitting on a curb waiting for somebody to leave their house! God, you are ridiculous. Investigate away moron..... Where the hell did the name paparazzi come from that seems like a dignified name for a leech. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy the Kid Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Where the hell did the name paparazzi come from that seems like a dignified name for a leech. The word paparazzi was introduced by the 1960 film La dolce vita directed by Federico Fellini. One of the characters in the film is a news photographer named Paparazzo (played by Walter Santesso). In his book Word and Phrase Origins, author Robert Hendrickson writes that Fellini took the name from an Italian dialect word for a particularly noisy, buzzing mosquito. In his school days, Fellini remembered a boy who was nicknamed "Paparazzo" (Mosquito), because of his fast talking and constant movements, a name Fellini later applied to the fictional character in La dolce vita. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy the Kid Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 Now there is also Stalkerazzi Stalkerazzi is a portmanteau of stalker and "paparazzi" and as the name implies signifies those whose techniques tend toward invading personal space and privacy although as some do make a living at this it can be interpreted as just doing a job. The term has gained usage in reference to popular culture figures like celebrities and people made famous through media and news events. In particular throughout 2007, Britney Spears has had a notable increase in the number of people following her every move in hopes of getting photos and videos. Tabloid shows such as Access Hollywood, TMZ on TV and tabloid print media such as People have facilitated such activities but arguably only to meet consumer demand. Episode 39 (Season 2, original air date 16 February 2004) of CSI Miami is titled "Stalkerazzi" and featured a celebrity photographer who is found dead in his car following an accident. The investigation leads to an A-list movie star who was caught in a compromising position in photos taken by the paparazzo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billy the Kid Posted April 11, 2008 Report Share Posted April 11, 2008 More on the subject: They lurk in bushes, camp out in cars and hover in helicopters. Some are brazen enough to openly brandish their cameras, like old Western gunslingers. They may be hated, but their work — candid pictures of celebs in unguarded moments — is coveted. They are the paparazzi, purveyors of pix that are the lifeblood of the weekly star-tracking mags and tabs. Their photos demand huge sums of money and are circulated worldwide. And as the public hunger for such glossy grist has grown they've become ever more relentless and ruthless. But starting Jan. 1, there'll be some new reins on the paparazzi parade. That's when a new California law goes into effect that increases penalties against overly aggressive photographers — dubbed "stalkerazzi" — who forcefully thrust their cameras into famous faces or crash their car into a celebrity's vehicle. They'll now be liable for three times the damages they inflict, plus lose any payments their published photos might earn. Publishers can also be held liable. "Now the paparazzi are going to have to think twice about chasing down a celebrity anywhere in California," said Assemblywoman Cindy Montanez, who drafted the bill, which was signed into law in October by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. (The former actor had an infamous paparazzi moment in 1998 when they used their cars to surround his SUV as he and wife Maria Shriver picked up their child from school.) The new law was inspired by a rash of recent celebrity car chases, Montanez said. In May, a photographer following Lindsay Lohan crashed into the actress' car in West Los Angeles (Lohan had another crash in October). The photographer was booked for assault with a deadly weapon, but prosecutors found insufficient evidence to press charges. In August, actress Scarlett Johansson was involved in a minor car crash in a Disneyland parking lot after being followed by paparazzi, and actress Reese Witherspoon said photographers tried to run her car off the road in April. No criminal charges resulted from those incidents, but the Los Angeles district attorney's office continues to investigate paparazzi photographers' aggressive tactics, said spokeswoman Jane Robison. Montanez said the new legislation "targets those who break the law in their attempt to get the photograph." While some celebrity shooters think the new law is needed to curb increasingly aggressive behavior, others call it unfair and unnecessary. And it may even be unconstitutional. Though the legislation is aimed at paparazzi photographers, it could have "a chilling effect" on newspapers and other media, said Jim Ewert, legal counsel for the California Newspaper Publishers Association. "This law now gives (celebrities) the ability to quash a photograph, and potentially a story (resulting from the photograph), with a frivolous lawsuit in an attempt to keep the public from being informed," he said. "The Constitution demands a little bit higher standard before the government puts the kibosh on a newspaper's ability to publish that story." Montanez insists the law was "specifically crafted in a way so there is no infringement on the rights of journalists." "This is about paparazzi who wait and hunt the celebrities, their prey, until they catch the celebrity in a state of compromise," she said. "They engage in assaultive behavior, and we can't condone that." @ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.