the wrath of an angry girlfriend – Its not photography, its Farktography

This topic has 15 replies, 10 voices, and was last updated 12 years, 10 months ago by Farktographer.

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 16 total)

1 2 →

Author

Posts
June 21, 2011 at 5:33 pm #2288

Farktographer
Participant

Found this on thechive – make sure you keep your lenses away from the crazies.

http://thechive.com/2011/06/21/angry-girlfriend-destroys-photographers-lenses-6-photos/

June 21, 2011 at 5:37 pm #39523

Kestrana
Participant

Wow, relationship be damned, I would probably sue her.

June 21, 2011 at 5:47 pm #39524

caradoc
Participant

Wow, relationship be damned, I would probably sue her.

Over here that’d be a class 5 felony (at least) on top of the civil suit. Jail time, 9 months to two years. Criminal damage, possibly aggravated, in excess of $2,000 but less than $10,000…

June 21, 2011 at 5:49 pm #39525

orionid
Participant

*plays taps for lenses*

June 21, 2011 at 7:17 pm #39531

Farktographer
Participant

Now if it were Canon, I probably wouldn’t feel so bad… 😆

June 21, 2011 at 7:46 pm #39530

CauseISaidSo
Participant

… ’cause if they were Canons, she would’ve worn herself out before being able to do functional damage, at which point her photographer boyfriend would’ve seen what she tried to do, clubbed her silly for it with the 70-200mm, and then went on to his next photoshoot uninterrupted. 😛

June 21, 2011 at 8:09 pm #39529

Farktographer
Participant

Lawl. Looking at the damage, I really do wonder what she used to break the casing. Looks like she chiseled the poor thing.

June 21, 2011 at 8:54 pm #39528

nobigdeal
Participant

Blocked at work but if it’s what I think it is it should be grounds for justifiable homicide.

June 21, 2011 at 11:11 pm #39527

chupathingie
Participant

oh that’s painful….

So what happened? Did she find he was taking pictures of someone else?

June 21, 2011 at 11:54 pm #39526

zincprincess
Participant

Not that I’m excusing such antics, but I do wonder what he did to incur that wrath.

June 22, 2011 at 1:54 am #39522

Plamadude30k
Participant

I’m not a religious person, but OH GOD WHY.

June 22, 2011 at 4:44 am #39521

Curious
Participant

instead of ex-girlfriend she would be refereed to as “the defendant”. there is no excuse for that level of damage. and to his working tools? oh hell no. the suit would be for replacement glass and all income lost.

June 22, 2011 at 1:42 pm #39520

orionid
Participant

instead of ex-girlfriend she would be refereed to as “the defendant”. there is no excuse for that level of damage. and to his working tools? oh hell no. the suit would be for replacement glass and all income lost.

Very much this. She would also probably accidentally fall down her front steps on the way to court.

June 22, 2011 at 4:30 pm #39519

caradoc
Participant

instead of ex-girlfriend she would be refereed to as “the defendant”. there is no excuse for that level of damage. and to his working tools? oh hell no. the suit would be for replacement glass and all income lost.

A buddy of mine says, “Nothing wrong with her that couldn’t be fixed with a busted 80-200mm suppository…”

June 22, 2011 at 11:09 pm #39518

chupathingie
Participant

Sad thing is, even if he takes her to court and gets a judgement she may not have the resources to repay him. Blood from a stone and all…
Author

Posts