Chris Rock - sadly, just another asshole

[jimnyc]

One of my favorite comedians. He made comments in the past about the Tea Party being racists, and insane. This guy Jason Mattera (don't know him myself) confronted him, asked to take a picture with him and all was cool. Then he asks Chris about his comments. I guess it's easier to lash out than honestly defend ones comments. Funny this kinds of stuff always happens from those who condemn the Tea Party.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/IzDLGk0tvas" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[ConHog]

fuck that nigger

/thread

[jimnyc]

fuck that nigger

/thread

I always liked him too. I think he's an awesome comedian, but should have stayed doing what he does best. And even being a dick would have been cool, but he's got no right to basically assault someone and try to damage their camera.

[ConHog]

I always liked him too. I think he's an awesome comedian, but should have stayed doing what he does best. And even being a dick would have been cool, but he's got no right to basically assault someone and try to damage their camera.

yeah i got no problem with him having his views. But what's with the damn violence?

[logroller]

I always liked him too. I think he's an awesome comedian, but should have stayed doing what he does best. And even being a dick would have been cool, but he's got no right to basically assault someone and try to damage their camera.
The guy was confronting him, verbally at first and Rock tried to walk away; then the guy stepped in front of him-- which could be construed as an act of force. Was it an overreaction, probably; completely unwarranted, no.

[SassyLady]

The guy was confronting him, verbally at first and Rock tried to walk away; then the guy stepped in front of him-- which could be construed as an act of force. Was it an overreaction, probably; completely unwarranted, no.

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought he attacked the cameraman....must watch this again. Didn't realize he attacked the guy who asked about the Tea Party.

Yep ... pretty sure he attacked the cameraman and not the guy who stepped in front.

[Mr. P]

I am puzzled by these entertainers who seem to have a handle on their craft, thinking they can sway the public with there opinion that seems to be an inflated image of self importance based on their success. I mean come on, most of em probably can't set an alarm clock! Just sayin

[jimnyc]

The guy was confronting him, verbally at first and Rock tried to walk away; then the guy stepped in front of him-- which could be construed as an act of force. Was it an overreaction, probably; completely unwarranted, no.

Why attack the camera man if it was the other guy who stepped in front of him? When confronted with an "act of force", you generally don't strike the person behind the one displaying the force.

And it's NOT completely unwarranted? You think assaulting someone and damaging expensive equipment is warranted for asking someone a question and walking in front of them? If this be the case, then surely you wouldn't mind it if a police officer did similar when guys dressed up as kooks, bearing cameras, as police questions while they are out in public. :)

[jimnyc]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought he attacked the cameraman....must watch this again. Didn't realize he attacked the guy who asked about the Tea Party.

Yep ... pretty sure he attacked the cameraman and not the guy who stepped in front.

Yep, it was the camera man, not that hitting the guy who asked him a question would have been much less of an assault.

[SassyLady]

Yep, it was the camera man, not that hitting the guy who asked him a question would have been much less of an assault.

That was my attempt at sarcasm. :poke:

I do not agree that this assault was warranted, of either the cameraman or the questioner. I am so sick of double standards in this country. It's OK for "entertainers" to treat others without dignity or respect, but you let someone question them and they are so "outraged" they believe they can attack you.

[logroller]

Oh, I'm sorry, I thought he attacked the cameraman....must watch this again. Didn't realize he attacked the guy who asked about the Tea Party.

Yep ... pretty sure he attacked the cameraman and not the guy who stepped in front.
For all I see he could of just tried to cover the lens, a little editing and badabing-- viral hit -- sorry if you disagree, but that's what I see. I'm pretty sure if I was attacked I'd go to the police before posting the video all over the internet; maybe that's just what I'd do because I'm not pushing a book entitled hypocritical hollywood.:rolleyes:

Kind of aside, but have you ever seen the movie Paparazzi-- great flick.

And Jim, re:public officials; there is a double standard-- govt officials are held to higher standard and are expected to endure significant burdens-- got me a court ruling to back that up too. When I see assault charges brought forth and resulting in a conviction-- then I'll see your point-- until then, I just see teaparty nutters:poke::laugh2:

[jimnyc]

Unless it turns out that Chris was somehow involved in a video that would make him look bad - there is NO excuse to lift your hands to another person, even if you feel "blocked" and even if you feel like it was a setup to ask questions. How much he assaulted the person can't really be "seen", but without a doubt he lifted his hands to the camera and tried to stop the recording and/or wrestle it away. It doesn't matter if it's from someone writing a book/movie or the motives, it still doesn't give one the right to raise their hands to another person or try to harm personal property. Even if it was some sort of attempt to make a viral video - then either Chris was secretly involved, which I highly doubt, or he still did in fact raise his hands to harm personal property or assault someone.

[Abbey Marie]

I think it's a hate crime. Let's prosecute it as such.

[Gator Monroe]

Like Bill Maher & Henry Rollings & Ed Asner * Jenene Garafalo & ...

[logroller]

Unless it turns out that Chris was somehow involved in a video that would make him look bad - there is NO excuse to lift your hands to another person, even if you feel "blocked" and even if you feel like it was a setup to ask questions. How much he assaulted the person can't really be "seen", but without a doubt he lifted his hands to the camera and tried to stop the recording and/or wrestle it away. It doesn't matter if it's from someone writing a book/movie or the motives, it still doesn't give one the right to raise their hands to another person or try to harm personal property. Even if it was some sort of attempt to make a viral video - then either Chris was secretly involved, which I highly doubt, or he still did in fact raise his hands to harm personal property or assault someone.

Blocking someone can be construed as false imprisonment/ unlawful detainment, which was done in an attempt to cast Chris Rock in a false light-- both torts of law, the former being a felony.
A condition for a detainment being unlawful: it is alleged a detention was effected by a threat, the plaintiff must demonstrate the threat was such as would inspire in the threatened person a just fear of
injury to her person, reputation, or property. Furthermore, the person with the camera was either an accomplice or was unknowingly involved; in case of the latter, the transfer of intent is attributable to felony actions taken by the interrogator-- as his actions directly led to another crime being committed.

[jimnyc]

Blocking someone can be construed as false imprisonment/ unlawful detainment, which was done in an attempt to cast Chris Rock in a false light-- both torts of law, the former being a felony.
A condition for a detainment being unlawful: it is alleged a detention was effected by a threat, the plaintiff must demonstrate the threat was such as would inspire in the threatened person a just fear of
injury to her person, reputation, or property. Furthermore, the person with the camera was either an accomplice or was unknowingly involved; in case of the latter, the transfer of intent is attributable to felony actions taken by the interrogator-- as his actions directly led to another crime being committed.

Please tell me your kidding. Every paparrazi in the world would be guilty of "false imprisonment/ unlawful detainment" if that were the case. He didn't physically touch him and forbid him from leaving. In fact, he barely impeded him, it was another group of people who mostly got in his way before he turned and reached for the camera. I've seen times where celebs could barely move because there are nearly 50 camera men in their way. That's a lot of crimes being committed!

But even if there was no one else there, it's laughable to think someone committed a crime as you describe, simply because they tried to ask a celebrity a few question. Chris wasn't "detained" in the slightest bit, nor was he "threatened", nor touched for that matter. The ONLY possible crime being committed here was from Chris himself, and there's a few choices he could of been charged with. As for the filmers, the only thing they were guilty of were being jackasses and tricking him into being asked a few questions he didn't like - hardly unlawful.

[DragonStryk72]

Why attack the camera man if it was the other guy who stepped in front of him? When confronted with an "act of force", you generally don't strike the person behind the one displaying the force.

And it's NOT completely unwarranted? You think assaulting someone and damaging expensive equipment is warranted for asking someone a question and walking in front of them? If this be the case, then surely you wouldn't mind it if a police officer did similar when guys dressed up as kooks, bearing cameras, as police questions while they are out in public. :)

Hate to say this Jim, but if a camera crew jumped me near the toilet just for a gotcha moment at a function that has nothing to do with what they're talking about, and they begin stalking me across the place? I'm going on the attack, and as far as I'm concerned, they're a team, and either one is a valid target. I don't care what the subject was, doesn't fucking matter, when you impede my right to privacy, and my right to move about freely, you've earned what you've got. Simply because he's present doesn't mean he has no right to be left alone.

When a person purposely walks away, it is made clear that the intent is that you do not wish to be part of the conversation. Past that is harassment, and honestly, more assholes need to take a beating, cause they've gotten way too cozy with the idea that there's no repercussions.

[jimnyc]

Hate to say this Jim, but if a camera crew jumped me near the toilet just for a gotcha moment at a function that has nothing to do with what they're talking about, and they begin stalking me across the place? I'm going on the attack, and as far as I'm concerned, they're a team, and either one is a valid target. I don't care what the subject was, doesn't fucking matter, when you impede my right to privacy, and my right to move about freely, you've earned what you've got. Simply because he's present doesn't mean he has no right to be left alone.

When a person purposely walks away, it is made clear that the intent is that you do not wish to be part of the conversation. Past that is harassment, and honestly, more assholes need to take a beating, cause they've gotten way too cozy with the idea that there's no repercussions.

So laws be damned, if you don't like someone badgering you over a question, you then have the right to assault or break their personal property?

He's a celeb, and was out in public, his privacy wasn't violated. Stalking? The whole thing took less than a few minutes and in a 10ft radius, hardly stalking. Harassment? Not sure about that one, at least not by the legal definition. Would need more than filming from 5-10ft away and asking questions from several feet away. It's not like he physically stopped Chris from going where he needed.

[jimnyc]

So Fox news has a "gotcha" team of sorts, where they go out on calls about individuals or companies that are screwing people over. The shows starts off undercover, but they break the camera and mic out when the "perp" has been outed. So when they follow the rip-off plumber down the road asking him a few questions about prices, but then pop out from behind an alley with the camera/mic in tow to find out why me may or may not have ripped people off in the past, the plumber is within his rights and warrants a physical response from him, or the damaging of their equipment?

There's a shitload of scenarios I can write about, where people film politicians/celebs/every day people, and many of those times are to record "gotcha" type moments or to get one to respond to a controversial issue. But if the person filming does so at an "inopportune" place, or it's bad timing, then they perhaps open themselves up for a beating or extra expenses for broken equipment?

[logroller]

Please tell me your kidding. Every paparrazi in the world would be guilty of "false imprisonment/ unlawful detainment" if that were the case. He didn't physically touch him and forbid him from leaving. In fact, he barely impeded him, it was another group of people who mostly got in his way before he turned and reached for the camera. I've seen times where celebs could barely move because there are nearly 50 camera men in their way. That's a lot of crimes being committed!

But even if there was no one else there, it's laughable to think someone committed a crime as you describe, simply because they tried to ask a celebrity a few question. Chris wasn't "detained" in the slightest bit, nor was he "threatened", nor touched for that matter. The ONLY possible crime being committed here was from Chris himself, and there's a few choices he could of been charged with. As for the filmers, the only thing they were guilty of were being jackasses and tricking him into being asked a few questions he didn't like - hardly unlawful.

Maybe. Mostly. I disagree with your dismissal of the guys' actions as less than what they were; a cunning attempt to trick him with the intent, IMHO, of casting him in false light for commercial purposes (and FWIW, they achieved that end). That's a tort, and given Rock's attempt flee, when they pursued him they committed a crime. Whether that's reason enough to get physical is questionable, I'll grant you that; but absent all relevant evidence (eg state of mind, like has Rock received tons of hate mail for his TeaParty comments), I withhold judgement. I assure you, I would afford you the same benefit of doubt. :thumb:

[logroller]

So laws be damned, if you don't like someone badgering you over a question, you then have the right to assault or break their personal property?

He's a celeb, and was out in public, his privacy wasn't violated. Stalking? The whole thing took less than a few minutes and in a 10ft radius, hardly stalking. Harassment? Not sure about that one, at least not by the legal definition. Would need more than filming from 5-10ft away and asking questions from several feet away. It's not like he physically stopped Chris from going where he needed.

If you don't like someone asking you questions, you have the right to walk away-- that's a privacy interest. If they impede you doing so, they have broken the law. Whether or not that warrants physical force is an excellent question, which cannot be answered under prima facie consideration and warrants further examination of the evidence as to what was perceived as a threat-- which is not presented in the OP video. Its a one-sided portrayal.

[jimnyc]

Maybe. Mostly. I disagree with your dismissal of the guys' actions as less than what they were; a cunning attempt to trick him with the intent, IMHO, of casting him in false light for commercial purposes (and FWIW, they achieved that end). That's a tort, and given Rock's attempt flee, when they pursued him they committed a crime. Whether that's reason enough to get physical is questionable, I'll grant you that; but absent all relevant evidence (eg state of mind, like has Rock received tons of hate mail for his TeaParty comments), I withhold judgement. I assure you, I would afford you the same benefit of doubt. :thumb:

Ever been to tmz.com?

That's their sole job, to go around and get people on camera, some for good reasons, and others are scenarios such as this one. And they only do so for a profit, and their website, and their TV show. And many, many more than this guy has ever done, are portrayed in a bad light. That's their job after all, film/picture and make money off of it whether its something positive or negative. But other than one of them assaulting someone, no one they film has the right to get physical with them or harm their property. I've even seen celebrities LITERALLY get blocked from coming out of stores due to the volume of reporters and cameras - no charges for false imprisonment. I've seen them dance around and more or less try to continually block the person they are filming, to get a few questions in, but no charges filed. I'm not saying its impossible, but it would have to be a FAR different case than this one where a reporter/camerman would be guilty of a crime.

But regardless if the intent was to be nice, or paint him as a racist no good piece of garbage, that doesn't give him the right to get physical with someone or damage their property. You may be able to convince me that sometimes people deserve it, or got what was coming to them, but that wouldn't make the actions any less illegal. Assault is assault, unless in self defense. And damaging personal property, can't think of an excuse for that.

Let's face it. Rock made what "I" think were dumb comments, others may agree with him. Someone was calling him on his comments and Rock didn't want to discuss it, much like every celebrity that is asked questions when they are out on the town or at an event. But rather than "no comment", or avoiding the camera until he could get away, he chose to strike at them, however you define that.

[jimnyc]

If you don't like someone asking you questions, you have the right to walk away-- that's a privacy interest. If they impede you doing so, they have broken the law. Whether or not that warrants physical force is an excellent question, which cannot be answered under prima facie consideration and warrants further examination of the evidence as to what was perceived as a threat-- which is not presented in the OP video. Its a one-sided portrayal.

Watch the video again, this guy never gets in front of Rock, let alone impeded him from doing so. Chris went to walk away, then there was another black guy, with the funny hat, that actually is in hiw way. Christ turns back around at that point and makes a b-line for the camera. You must be seeing a different video of you think this guy impeded Chris in any way.

[logroller]

Watch the video again, this guy never gets in front of Rock, let alone impeded him from doing so. Chris went to walk away, then there was another black guy, with the funny hat, that actually is in hiw way. Christ turns back around at that point and makes a b-line for the camera. You must be seeing a different video of you think this guy impeded Chris in any way.
I don't really car all that much. if he threw the guy out a window and went to prison for it; no biggy, I still get up in the morning and go about my business. I trust law enforcement to handle this if need be-- but I'm thinking the court of public opinion already handed down the verdict and LE need not get involved.

BTW, love TMZ! Best clip I ever saw was a time they were at LAX and across the terminal they see Bette Midler coming down the escalator. So they frantically rush over there, doing what it is they do; I think they said something about "I loved you in Beaches" or something. Anyways, having just got off a flight, she's in her comfy clothes and having seen paparazzi swarm on this show before I'm thinking, she doesn't want to be photographed, but I was impressed-- she hams it up, gives em a show-- you know, pushing up her hair like she's modeling or something-- really being a doll. Only, just when she gets to the bottom of the escalator and is within conversation range, her demeanor changes completely and she shouts "FUCK OFF":laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: I was in stitches, so were the reporters. They got their shot but she owned the moment. Changed my opinion of Bette Midler forever, I knew she was crass, but she's in a class all her own.

[LuvRPgrl]

Watch the video again, this guy never gets in front of Rock, let alone impeded him from doing so. Chris went to walk away, then there was another black guy, with the funny hat, that actually is in hiw way. Christ turns back around at that point and makes a b-line for the camera. You must be seeing a different video of you think this guy impeded Chris in any way.

Interesting.
An awful lot of strong opinions floating around here
anybody heard Rocks ;side of the story yet?
Thought ;not.
Arent there laws against stalking and harrasment.?
Where did this take place?
WHO edited the short film that we are watching?
Just asking.

[jimnyc]

Interesting.
An awful lot of strong opinions floating around here
anybody heard Rocks ;side of the story yet?
Thought ;not.

Maybe acting like an asshole and having it caught on film isn't something you go off and brag about? He's probably ignoring it in the hopes that it fades away.


Arent there laws against stalking and harrasment.?

Yes, but walking up to a celebrity and asking a question fits neither of those. It happens probably thousands of times per day to celebrities and famous people, and I dare you to find these daily arrests for either of those crimes.


Where did this take place?

The sundance film festival, where you know, celebrities and the like get together AND the camera people AND reporters...


WHO edited the short film that we are watching?
Just asking.

Jason Matterra. And regardless of what others may have stated previously, if you watch the video, you'll see he never blocks Rock from walking away, and never tries to "pick a fight" or anything else that would cause Rock to act in "self defense". While some things can be edited, admittedly, I highly doubt they could edit Rock voluntarily walking away, then voluntarily turning around and grabbing at the camera/camerawoman.

I find it highly amusing that some will look at a video and find any excuse they can to find the person who looks guilty, to be less guilty. Do you guys think maybe Jason punched Rock in the face, and maybe edited that portion out? Because short of an assault, Rock has NO RIGHT to raise his hands to the camera person and NO RIGHT to grab/damage personal property.

[jimnyc]

Here's a still shot of the scene. You clearly see Rock being aggressive, and Mattera standing innocently in the background as Rock goes after the camera. But for those claiming Jason somehow prevented Rock from leaving - you watched a different video, because the video clearly shows Jason did no such thing.

Also, and to be a bit repetitive, I can assume that all of you defending Rock also are of the opinion that ALL celebrities that get "snuck up on" and asked questions they don't like, have the right to assault and/or damage the camera filming them?

Russell Brand didn't like being filmed last week and took the cell that was filming him and tossed it away. The celebrity was also just charged with a felony for his actions. I can provide TONS AND TONS of examples where a celeb lashed out when they didn't like being filmed, only to find themselves on the wrong side of charges. Sean Penn comes to mind for starters.

http://assets.nydailynews.com/polopoly_fs/1.1039536.1331824152!/img/httpImage/image.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_635/image.jpg

[jimnyc]

What's your guys thoughts on the following video? This is Sean Penn. He came back at the paparazzi just like Rock, lashed out like Rock, the paparazzi kept snapping photos, and other paparazzi continued to film the more irate that Penn got. His excuse was that they were "stalking" him, and that it was "harassment" the way that they wouldn't leave him alone.

From what I understand, there was a LARGE settlement awarded to the photographer - and Penn got 36 months probation and 300 hours of community service.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/sF8TfwBcnUE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Kanye West, although I believe he himself eventually got off of the charges.

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/dEgTE2qcIgg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Bjork:

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/pYyyqIZTvYY" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[LuvRPgrl]

Maybe acting like an asshole and having it caught on film isn't something you go off and brag about? He's probably ignoring it in the hopes that it fades away..

JUST ANOTHER ASSUMPTION, I DONT WORK ON ASSUMPTIONS




Yes, but walking up to a celebrity and asking a question fits neither of those. It happens probably thousands of times per day to celebrities and famous people, and I dare you to find these daily arrests for either of those crimes..

SO YOU ARE AWARE OF THE FULL AND COMPLETE HISTORY OF THE INTERACTION OF THESE PEOPLE IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT? THE PREVIOUS DAY? The previous day, week, month , year?




The sundance film festival, where you know, celebrities and the like get together AND the camera people AND reporters....

So because there are so many reporters and camera men there, they can do no wrong?




Jason Matterra. And regardless of what others may have stated previously, if you watch the video, you'll see he never blocks Rock from walking away, and never tries to "pick a fight" or anything else that would cause Rock to act in "self defense". While some things can be edited, admittedly, I highly doubt they could edit Rock voluntarily walking away, then voluntarily turning around and grabbing at the camera/camerawoman..

Another ASSUMPTION


I find it highly amusing that some will look at a video and find any excuse they can to find the person who looks guilty, to be less guilty..

IF u r accusing me of that, I did no such thing.


Do you guys think maybe Jason punched Rock in the face, and maybe edited that portion out?.

Dont know. Do you have proof that NOTHING ELSE happened that may have contributed to Rock's behavior?


Because short of an assault, Rock has NO RIGHT to raise his hands to the camera person and NO RIGHT to grab/damage personal property.

I do not agree. I have taken people down without them actually commiting assualt.

AND I HAVE BEEN ACCUSED OF SOMETHING I DIDNT DO AND PEOPLE DREW THEIR CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT HAVING EVER HEARD MY SIDE OF THE STORY.
The other persons version left the people thinking, it doesnt matter what I would have to say, there was no excuse for my behavior, but guess what, they were wrong.
And I'm not defending Chris, Im just questioning those who have already condemned him.

[jimnyc]

I'm not replying to illiterate gibberish. Fact is, reporters and paparazzi are allowed to film and ask questions of celebrities. Things that are off limits are like telephoto lenses into private property, assault and extreme stalking. You're blabbing on about "assumptions". Then if that be the case, ALL we have is the little bit of film. The rest would all be assumptions. Why aren't you questioning others in this thread about the "stalking" "harassment" and other possible excuses, wouldn't they be assumptions?

[jimnyc]

Seems like the police who appear on scene for all of these "scuffles" between paparazzi and celebs, for whatever reason, tend to arrest the celebs for damaging equipment or assault. Odd, ain't it?

Mike Tyson:

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/r8M1MLMwUNI" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[jimnyc]

Apparently the recent incident with Russell Brand wasn't his first, he was arrested at LAX previously for battery when he fought with the paparazzi, and then released on $20,000 bail.

http://www.tmz.com/2010/09/17/russell-brand-arrested-lax-airport-allegedly-attacked-paparazzi-katy-perry-delta/

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not replying to illiterate gibberish. Fact is, reporters and paparazzi are allowed to film and ask questions of celebrities. Things that are off limits are like telephoto lenses into private property, assault and extreme stalking. You're blabbing on about "assumptions". Then if that be the case, ALL we have is the little bit of film. The rest would all be assumptions. Why aren't you questioning others in this thread about the "stalking" "harassment" and other possible excuses, wouldn't they be assumptions?

There was no intent on my part to single you out, my apologies if I did. I didnt want to give the same questions over and over to the other posts, posters.
I dont think Im speaking gibberish, and you are right, there is only that one tidbit of film that we have to determine actual facts.
To present anything else beyond that it should be stated using a term or terms such as, in all probability, in my opinion, odds are....


ever hear of anthony graves and charles sebesta? people are innocent until proven guilty, and they always have a right to present their side, and I never find someone guilty of something unless I have heard both sides.
As I said before, I have been accused of things before, and the evidence from the other side was just as compelling as the chris rock video, but once my side was presented, those who thought I was guilty and so much so that they thought there was absolutely zero chance of any explanation of circumstances that would change their mind, did in fact change their minds.
Even celebrities are suppose to be given the benefit of the doubt.

[LuvRPgrl]

I'm not replying to illiterate gibberish. Fact is, reporters and paparazzi are allowed to fialm and ask questions of celebrities. Things that are off limits are like telephoto lenses into private property, assault and extreme stalking. You're blabbing on about "assumptions". Then if that be the case, ALL we have is the little bit of film. The rest would all be assumptions. Why aren't you questioning others in this thread about the "stalking" "harassment" and other possible excuses, wouldn't they be assumptions?

after going back and reviewing the thread,there really wasnt anyone else dissing chris rock.'
And just who determines what is off limits and what isnt?
Different celebs have different boiling points,
its not a law that if you are3 a celeb, you have to be willing to put up with papparazzi, I know if I didnt want them around me, I would do a
Chris Rock too.

[jimnyc]

after going back and reviewing the thread,there really wasnt anyone else dissing chris rock.'
And just who determines what is off limits and what isnt?
Different celebs have different boiling points,
its not a law that if you are3 a celeb, you have to be willing to put up with papparazzi, I know if I didnt want them around me, I would do a
Chris Rock too.

But a few accused Matterra of perhaps stalking or harassment - wouldn't they be assumptions as well? In fact, I think it would be MORE of a stretch to accuse me of assuming, I do after all have a video that shows Rock raising his hands and physically grabbing another persons personal property. There is NO evidence of any laws broken by the reporter/camerwoman.

[LuvRPgrl]

But a few accused Matterra of perhaps stalking or harassment - wouldn't they be assumptions as well? In fact, I think it would be MORE of a stretch to accuse me of assuming, I do after all have a video that shows Rock raising his hands and physically grabbing another persons personal property. There is NO evidence of any laws broken by the reporter/camerwoman.

All I'm saying is we dont have enough information to condemn, or make a n informed opinion yet.
I didnt say he was innocent.

As for mattera, I also dont have any info on it and dont have an opinion

[Gator Monroe]

he Balkanization has Liberals ready to Snap at a moments notice...