To be fair that is not something you see everyday.

Bathia_Mapes: AbbeySomeone: To be fair that is not something you see everyday.

True, but shopping around a photo of a man's decapitated head is pretty disgusting.

It's Hollywood, and yes it's disgusting. This will end badly for everyone.

Petit_Merdeux: AbbeySomeone: This will end badly for everyone.

Not as bad as it did for the headless dude.

Lol.

Bodies are "decapitated" when the head is removed.

Heads are "disembodied" when detached.

Hollywood is a cutthroat town. You've got to do whatever it takes to get a head.

/knew his name

MC Magic Cracker: Bodies are "decapitated" when the head is removed.

Heads are "disembodied" when detached.

Thank you.

So, has it been put on LiveLeak yet?

There can be only one.

MC Magic Cracker: Bodies are "decapitated" when the head is removed.

Heads are "disembodied" when detached.

I feel the same way when they put "naked pictures" in the news.

Bathia_Mapes: True, but shopping around a photo of a man's decapitated head is pretty disgusting.

So is pissing on the corpses of the recently deceased, but the media lapped that up. Why not cash in on a mere decapitation?

(Yes, they're both horrific but it shows there's a market for that sort of thing)

Not a lawyer but...

TFA said he snapped the pic first, before the police were called. Therefore there was no police investigation to interfere
with at the time the pic was snapped.

...now if he had pushed through crime tape and photoed it, that would be another thing. People take pics all the time at the edge of a crime scene.

Not to say it isn't "off", but I doubt it's criminal.

Bathia_Mapes: FTA...The human head that was found in a Hollywood park Tuesday was photographed by a passerby ... and guess what -- the photo is being shopped around.

If that's true, the passerby is in deep doo doo. It's called interfering with a police investigation, idiot.

On the other hand, kudos to TMZ for not posting a picture of the head.

Why? After 221 years, it continues to remain legal to photograph something lying in a public place.

If I were the person who lent the phone, I'd be pretty annoyed that there's a pic of a disembodied head on my phone. "Gee thanks, asshole."

How is the person who loaned a phone for someone else to report the head to the police a 'Good Samaritan'?

I believe the correct term should be 'Guy with Phone'.

Bathia_Mapes: FTA...The human head that was found in a Hollywood park Tuesday was photographed by a passerby ... and guess what -- the photo is being shopped around.

If that's true, the passerby is in deep doo doo. It's called interfering with a police investigation, idiot.

On the other hand, kudos to TMZ for not posting a picture of the head.

Uh, no, that is not called interfering with a police investigation. If I were to come upon an accident and take a picture before the police get there, would you say the same thing? Guessing not...

Who doesn't like to get a little head?

I can see disembodied heads and much grosser things on the internet any old time. Why would this person think anyone would pay for such a thing? There's plenty of ghouls who have access to pictures of squashed bodies, murder victims, autopsies, and body parts who will post them on the internet for free.

OK ethical question here: When is it acceptable to request money for a newsworthy photo you've taken? Do you draw the line at a dead body(ies)? Would it be ok to sell images of a plane or car crash as long as no graphic injuries were visible?

cryinoutloud: I can see disembodied heads and much grosser things on the internet any old time. Why would this person think anyone would pay for such a thing? There's plenty of ghouls who have access to pictures of squashed bodies, murder victims, autopsies, and body parts who will post them on the internet for free.

and gruesome photos used to be printed in usa newspapers. i understand the LEOs don't want crime scene photos in the public eye, though.

AbbeySomeone: To be fair that is not something you see everyday.

Unless you want to use google search.

Who wants to own that anyways? yeah, it's a curiosity, but like I said, google search.

bahamasorbust: Bathia_Mapes: FTA...The human head that was found in a Hollywood park Tuesday was photographed by a passerby ... and guess what -- the photo is being shopped around.

If that's true, the passerby is in deep doo doo. It's called interfering with a police investigation, idiot.

On the other hand, kudos to TMZ for not posting a picture of the head.

Uh, no, that is not called interfering with a police investigation. If I were to come upon an accident and take a picture before the police get there, would you say the same thing? Guessing not...

There could be things about the head or surrounding area that only the victim, killer, and police would know. If you shop photos of a crime scene around, that makes the investigation and questioning harder. It doesn't matter when the pictures were taken if it's such an obvious crime scene.

Bathia_Mapes: FTA...The human head that was found in a Hollywood park Tuesday was photographed by a passerby ... and guess what -- the photo is being shopped around.

If that's true, the passerby is in deep doo doo. It's called interfering with a police investigation, idiot.

On the other hand, kudos to TMZ for not posting a picture of the head.

No, not really.

If the object is in plain view in a public area then it is fair game.

FTA: We've seen the pic -- no, we're not buying it.

Dude's asking price must have been too high.

Well it's a horrible way to die, but on the other hand, it's better to burn out than to fade away.

memebot_of_doom: OK ethical question here: When is it acceptable to request money for a newsworthy photo you've taken? Do you draw the line at a dead body(ies)? Would it be ok to sell images of a plane or car crash as long as no graphic injuries were visible?

You really have to ask? To profit from the grizzly photograph of the severed head of a person who likely has a grieving family somewhere poses ethical issues, I would think. Imagine stumbling across the image of your murdered loved-one on the Internet. Think about that for a moment.

If I found a head laying around, I'd take a picture too. I wait for identification (and family notification) then release the picture freely. I'd do it for he shock value. :)

came looking for pictures- leaving disappointed.

I wish I had known there was a market for photos of heads.... I have lots of photos of the skulls we dug up on accident. :D (skulls)

Lissa is my name: Imagine stumbling across the image of your murdered loved-one on the Internet. Think about that for a moment.

Unless you have a penchant for severed head photos I imagine you stand about the same chance of stumbling across it on the internet as you would in the park. Either way, pretty horrific.

Lissa is my name: memebot_of_doom: OK ethical question here: When is it acceptable to request money for a newsworthy photo you've taken? Do you draw the line at a dead body(ies)? Would it be ok to sell images of a plane or car crash as long as no graphic injuries were visible?

You really have to ask? To profit from the grizzly photograph of the severed head of a person who likely has a grieving family somewhere poses ethical issues, I would think. Imagine stumbling across the image of your murdered loved-one on the Internet. Think about that for a moment.

I think he's talking about war photographers. Some of the most famous, award winning journalism photos are pretty damn grisly (Vietnam execution, fireman and baby after Oklahoma City bombing, Jonestown, etc). I don't know if those photogs were freelancers or salaried, but they got paid to take those pictures.

King Keepo: Lissa is my name: Imagine stumbling across the image of your murdered loved-one on the Internet. Think about that for a moment.

Unless you have a penchant for severed head photos I imagine you stand about the same chance of stumbling across it on the internet as you would in the park. Either way, pretty horrific.

I would agree, except that many people who have lost people to violent crime suddenly find themselves interested in it. I speak from experience, but that by no means makes me an expert on the subject. I'm just making an observation.

Trocadero: Lissa is my name: memebot_of_doom: OK ethical question here: When is it acceptable to request money for a newsworthy photo you've taken? Do you draw the line at a dead body(ies)? Would it be ok to sell images of a plane or car crash as long as no graphic injuries were visible?

You really have to ask? To profit from the grizzly photograph of the severed head of a person who likely has a grieving family somewhere poses ethical issues, I would think. Imagine stumbling across the image of your murdered loved-one on the Internet. Think about that for a moment.

I think he's talking about war photographers. Some of the most famous, award winning journalism photos are pretty damn grisly (Vietnam execution, fireman and baby after Oklahoma City bombing, Jonestown, etc). I don't know if those photogs were freelancers or salaried, but they got paid to take those pictures.

War photos I understand but it really looked like he was talking about the photo that this thread is about. That was the logical conclusion I drew.

He is a good Samaritan...I always figured head-shots were expensive in Hollywood.

Lissa is my name: Trocadero: Lissa is my name: memebot_of_doom: OK ethical question here: When is it acceptable to request money for a newsworthy photo you've taken? Do you draw the line at a dead body(ies)? Would it be ok to sell images of a plane or car crash as long as no graphic injuries were visible?

You really have to ask? To profit from the grizzly photograph of the severed head of a person who likely has a grieving family somewhere poses ethical issues, I would think. Imagine stumbling across the image of your murdered loved-one on the Internet. Think about that for a moment.

I think he's talking about war photographers. Some of the most famous, award winning journalism photos are pretty damn grisly (Vietnam execution, fireman and baby after Oklahoma City bombing, Jonestown, etc). I don't know if those photogs were freelancers or salaried, but they got paid to take those pictures.

War photos I understand but it really looked like he was talking about the photo that this thread is about. That was the logical conclusion I drew.

So it's okay if a person's family has to see pictures of their loved one being executed in Vietnam, but not so in Hollywood? Is this due to it being during war, or that the individual is Vietnamese in one case and white in the other? Ether way I don't see how the family of the war picture is any less harmed by having to revisit the photo.

dissent/dysentery: Lissa is my name: Trocadero: Lissa is my name: memebot_of_doom: OK ethical question here: When is it acceptable to request money for a newsworthy photo you've taken? Do you draw the line at a dead body(ies)? Would it be ok to sell images of a plane or car crash as long as no graphic injuries were visible?

You really have to ask? To profit from the grizzly photograph of the severed head of a person who likely has a grieving family somewhere poses ethical issues, I would think. Imagine stumbling across the image of your murdered loved-one on the Internet. Think about that for a moment.

I think he's talking about war photographers. Some of the most famous, award winning journalism photos are pretty damn grisly (Vietnam execution, fireman and baby after Oklahoma City bombing, Jonestown, etc). I don't know if those photogs were freelancers or salaried, but they got paid to take those pictures.

War photos I understand but it really looked like he was talking about the photo that this thread is about. That was the logical conclusion I drew.

So it's okay if a person's family has to see pictures of their loved one being executed in Vietnam, but not so in Hollywood? Is this due to it being during war, or that the individual is Vietnamese in one case and white in the other? Ether way I don't see how the family of the war picture is any less harmed by having to revisit the photo.

Slow down there with all of your far-fetched assumptions. I failed to go into more detail because I didn't really think anyone would read all of that madness into "war photos I understand". I'm never ok with a close-up of a deceased person's face or body. There is also a huge difference between journalism (real journalism, not the BS that passes for it these days) and this sick asshole's money-grabbing scheme.