Skip to content

Brady's Wife's Goon Squad Allegedly Fired Shots At Photographers

And just as we were starting to think that this was a fairly slow and quiet weekend in the NFL, allegations have arisen that are roughly as startling as anything we’ve heard lately.
According to the Boston Globe, shots rang out at the wedding celebration of Pats quarterback Tom Brady and model Gisele Bundchen.
We refuse to call Bundchen a “supermodel” until she demonstrates the ability to fly.  In this specific case, we’ll also accept “faster than a speeding bullet.”
Especially since the new Mrs. Brady’s security detail allegedly was responsible for the shooting.
The incident occurred in Costa Rica.  Two photographers hired by a photo agency known as INF “narrowly escaped death” when gunmen fired at their jeep as they drove away from the site of the wedding.
“I couldn’t believe it when I realized what they had done,” one of the photographers told INF.  “I could have lost my life for the sake of some pictures that Gisele didn’t want published.  Are they insane?”
Authorities reportedly are investigating.
In our view, not even the most powerful hallucinogenic compounds could have prompted the writers of the supposedly far-fetched Playmakers series to come up with such a twist — especially if the story arc includes Tom showing up late for the Super Bowl because he was making a conjugal visit to Gisele’s Costa Rican prison.

Permalink 95 Comments Feed for comments Latest Stories in: Legal, New England Patriots, Rumor Mill, Top Stories
95 Responses to “Brady's Wife's Goon Squad Allegedly Fired Shots At Photographers”
  1. Favre2012 says: Apr 5, 2009 4:32 PM

    If they were trespassing on private property, they got what they deserved. I live in LA, these douchebags think carrying a camera means they can do anything they want.

  2. ronmexico says: Apr 5, 2009 4:37 PM

    Too bad the shots missed. Stupid paparazzi, get a real job.

  3. nsw-pirates says: Apr 5, 2009 4:39 PM

    They were paparazzi so who cares? Brady should probably hire a PSD that has better accuracy.

  4. arosen36 says: Apr 5, 2009 4:39 PM

    maybe she thought that she looked fat in the pictures

  5. Slow Joe says: Apr 5, 2009 4:40 PM

    What is this world coming to?
    If true, the photographers should have fired back. When the lead started flying, we could have seen whether Brady would have protected Gisele or used her as a human shield.

  6. arosen36 says: Apr 5, 2009 4:41 PM

    this is a non-story though, we all know that patriots can do whatever they want and not face legal punishment or punishment from roger goodell (see kazcur, nick)

  7. vegas42 says: Apr 5, 2009 4:41 PM

    Was this supposed to have been posted on April 1?

  8. Ralph GreNader says: Apr 5, 2009 4:42 PM

    Its ok. She’s white.

  9. EaglesRule says: Apr 5, 2009 4:46 PM

    Hey Florio when did you get hired by TMZ?

  10. JuicyMelon says: Apr 5, 2009 4:48 PM

    They weren’t photographers. They were the sprint guy and his buddy trying to convince Gisele to switch over from AT&T. Obviously she didn’t want to and got sick of them bugging her about it.

  11. WorldChampionBears2008 says: Apr 5, 2009 4:48 PM

    technically you can do anything to protect your property.
    Once you’re trespassing you’re fair game. We don’t know that all they were doing was snapping pictures. They could have been strapped for all we know.
    In the South they wouldn’t have missed. Trust me.
    Also, Florio you’re getting better in your slang next time leave out squad. It’s just “goons.”

  12. emoser says: Apr 5, 2009 4:51 PM

    Two things:
    1) Why would Gisele do jail time, even if the people were killed? I doubt she pulled a Pacman and actually ordered for them to shoot at the photographer.
    2) Even if she did, it wouldn’t be a crime. There’s no law against killing cockroaches.

  13. TomBradyWoot says: Apr 5, 2009 4:51 PM

    arosen36 says:
    April 5th, 2009 at 4:41 pm
    this is a non-story though, we all know that patriots can do whatever they want and not face legal punishment or punishment from roger goodell (see kazcur, nick)
    Um…this has nothing to do with the Patriots or Roger Goodell. The security of Tom Brady’s wife fired shots at photographers. Why would they (or Tom or Gisele or whomever you’re trying to say should) face punishment from Roger Goodell?
    Also and to show how wrong you are about Kazcur, he did face legal punishment. Hence why he dimed the guy out. That was part of the deal. Then again, I’m sure you’ll just reply and say only Patriots get legal deals.

  14. tophertencha says: Apr 5, 2009 4:54 PM

    With an offseason as entertaining as this one, maybe the league should look at a shortened regular season.

  15. regal says: Apr 5, 2009 4:57 PM

    I agree with Ron Mexico. Too bad the body guards missed. If you’re on private property and trying to take pictures you should know the risks.

  16. Vox Veritas says: Apr 5, 2009 4:57 PM

    When did Mass. ok same sex marriages anyway?

  17. JSpicoli says: Apr 5, 2009 4:58 PM

    Don’t worry Brady fans. Walt Coleman is on his way to clear everything up.

  18. LiveNBreath Football says: Apr 5, 2009 5:00 PM

    Hey moron paparrazzi — yeah you almost lost your life because you decided to invade someone’s privacy. Cause – Effect. If you hadn’t been such an invasive bacteria, you would not have been in danger. Leave people alone and they leave you alone. Amazing how that works.

  19. SaintsBucsPanthersSUKK says: Apr 5, 2009 5:03 PM

    Marvin Harrison was working Gisele’s security detail.

  20. Strs90 says: Apr 5, 2009 5:06 PM

    I agree it would have just been two cockroaches down…

  21. Vox Veritas says: Apr 5, 2009 5:06 PM

    “1) Why would Gisele do jail time, even if the people were killed? I doubt she pulled a Pacman and actually ordered for them to shoot at the photographer.”
    Doesn’t matter. As the biggest name there at the scene of the crime, she’s just as guilty as Pacman.

  22. Strs90 says: Apr 5, 2009 5:07 PM

    If it were me I would have shot them with a gun and then with the camera so I could post the pic on my blog.

  23. GiantsHoldingOnGreatEscape says: Apr 5, 2009 5:07 PM

    Stupid story. Not funny. Dennis Miller type of funny.
    Florio must be one of those moronic 2-time Bush voters.

  24. Vox Veritas says: Apr 5, 2009 5:08 PM

    “Also and to show how wrong you are about Kazcur, he did face legal punishment. Hence why he dimed the guy out. That was part of the deal. Then again, I’m sure you’ll just reply and say only Patriots get legal deals. ”
    Pats players are the only ones that I’ve seen get deals for getting busted smuggling narcotics into the country.

  25. JoeSixPack says: Apr 5, 2009 5:11 PM

    This seems credible. If you can’t trust tabloid photographers to tell the truth, who CAN you trust?

  26. Backinthesaddle says: Apr 5, 2009 5:11 PM

    Were they on private property? I’d be willing to bet that it was posted as well. The parparazzi caused the death of Princess Diana with their overzealous tactics and highly intrusive actions. I would have liked to hear they were trespassing on posted private property and were actually shot. Maybe then these despicable paparazzi weasels will back off.

  27. Vox Veritas says: Apr 5, 2009 5:12 PM

    Did you brainiacs miss the part about the goons going after the paps and taking them back to the villa before shooting at them?
    The trouble apparently began as the two photographers were returning to their car after using long lenses to shoot pics of the nuptials. The snappers were then confronted by security and “frogmarched” to the Brazilian beauty’s villa, where they were asked to turn over their film, according to INF. (Gisele, it seems, has an exclusive picture deal with a Brazilian magazine.) The men refused and, trailed by security, ran back to their jeep. “As they started the engine, a live round pierced the back windshield…and hit the front windshield directly between the two mens’ heads,” according to a post at INF’s blog.

  28. Elaw6 says: Apr 5, 2009 5:12 PM

    Wes Welker was the flower boy

  29. eagledan says: Apr 5, 2009 5:14 PM

    Gisele, fire these guys immediately. If they can’t hit a couple of dinky photogs, they need to be replaced!

  30. TheDPR says: Apr 5, 2009 5:16 PM

    The security guards need both a commendation and more shooting lessons.

  31. Pantherfan105 says: Apr 5, 2009 5:21 PM

    What paparazi twats get for crashing someones wedding. Too bad they missed.

  32. killwithme says: Apr 5, 2009 5:21 PM

    ask the royal family what they think of innocent people with cameras.

  33. noeyes43 says: Apr 5, 2009 5:23 PM

    I’m sorry they missed too! Why don’t they try to get a REAL job? If they were trespassing, they should have been shot! I’ll tell you one thing, anyone that trespasses on my property armed with a camera, they will get what they deserve! End of story!

  34. BlogHog says: Apr 5, 2009 5:23 PM

    Gun fire in Costa Rica?
    Nooooooooooooooooo !
    If they wanted those wussy photags dead, “thy will be done” because they would have been swiss cheeze.

  35. arosen36 says: Apr 5, 2009 5:26 PM

    @TomBradyWoot
    you are one of those guys who think that the patriots are treated fairly and that spygate wasnt cheating, stfu i hate guys like you

  36. tafiti says: Apr 5, 2009 5:30 PM

    @ WorldChampionBears2008:
    “technically you can do anything to protect your property. Once you’re trespassing you’re fair game.”
    Not true. You can remove trespassers from your property, true, but to do so by force must be reasonable under the circumstances. If you’re armed and have no reason to believe you’re in danger (camera in one hand, handgun in the other? yeah right), shooting at photographers would be patently unreasonable, and you would get your a** sued in a heartbeat (to say nothing of criminal charges).

  37. HarrisonHits says: Apr 5, 2009 5:43 PM

    “according to a post at INF’s blog.”
    Yes and we all know how honest papparazzi are.
    Good thing Tom’s arm is a lot more accurate throwing than the guards were shooting. He should’ve beaned them off the head with a long ball to teach ‘em a lesson.

  38. Dinozzo says: Apr 5, 2009 5:47 PM

    Plaxico was on the security detail as well. His shots hit himself again in the leg….

  39. 777 says: Apr 5, 2009 5:52 PM

    i bet bernard pollard is the real target
    this is just a warm up

  40. Vox Veritas says: Apr 5, 2009 5:53 PM

    oh yeah, trying to kill somebody for the crime of taking somebody’s picture, completely justified. It would seem like the boyish supermodel apple doesn’t fall far from the Nazi war criminal tree.

  41. NoHomeTeam says: Apr 5, 2009 5:53 PM

    WorldChampionBears2008 says: “technically you can do anything to protect your property . . . Once you’re trespassing you’re fair game.”
    regal says: “Too bad the body guards missed. If you’re on private property and trying to take pictures you should know the risks.”
    Bears2008 — Technically, you CAN’T do “anything” to protect your property. You may take lethal action if you feel that your person is in imminent danger. You may NOT open fire on someone just because they are trespassing. You may NOT, in nearly all circumstances, use lethal force to preserve material possessions. I must assume that you have not put your legal philosophy into practice, as you would in all likelihood be incarcerated for doing so.
    regal — Have you ever heard of the phrase “proportionate response?” I hope you are not seriously advocating the position that an act of photography, however invasive, merits gunfire.
    The idea that the designation of “Private Property” somehow acts as a universal screen for what would otherwise be illegal behavior is misplaced, at best. You still have to obey the laws of the land, which I’m pretty sure — even in Costa Rica — means you can’t shoot someone without reasonable provocation.

  42. StanMort says: Apr 5, 2009 5:56 PM

    I did the same thing at my wedding. In the end it turned out that my wife had hired somebody to take pictures, who knew…?

  43. dlcreed says: Apr 5, 2009 6:03 PM

    Florio you obviously have no problem with CEO’s getting shot..why not a photag? Your site is going to crap

  44. jp81976 says: Apr 5, 2009 6:07 PM

    Florio…
    you should take a bunch of real life things that happen, mix in stuff from Playmakers, and have a little contest to see if people can pick out the fake stories from the real ones…and give away one of your books that you don’t want us to buy as a prize…

  45. Vox Veritas says: Apr 5, 2009 6:09 PM

    “You may NOT, in nearly all circumstances, use lethal force to preserve material possessions.”
    In Texas, if you catch an intruder in your house you can assume that he’s there to cause harm and kill him. I don’t care if he’s there just to get in out of the cold.

  46. silverdeer says: Apr 5, 2009 6:13 PM

    I have gone through all of these responses and I have
    noticed one thing that no one else has brought up. When
    everyone has been discussing what is allowed and what isn’t,
    the reference that everyone has been following is that this
    occurred in the U.S. If you look at the story, this occurred
    in Costa Rica, which, the last time I checked was a different
    country with different laws. Personal opinion aside, stating
    that the security detail did something wrong or possibly
    illegal may not be accurate.

  47. Kotite says: Apr 5, 2009 6:13 PM

    They must’ve taped the prenuptial walk through a la Matt Walsh.

  48. ice456789 says: Apr 5, 2009 6:20 PM

    They should have hired Plaxico Burress. He never misses.

  49. BlueEyeDevils says: Apr 5, 2009 6:20 PM

    What’s the big deal – No dogs got harmed!

  50. Alpheratz says: Apr 5, 2009 6:21 PM

    The difference between a dead possum on the road and dead tabloid journalists?
    The possum will have skid marks in front of it.

  51. jcdavey says: Apr 5, 2009 6:28 PM

    if they were on private property, good!
    serves the bastards right, photogs are the scum of the earth

  52. WorldChampionBears2008 says: Apr 5, 2009 6:34 PM

    You can sort out why the persons are on my property after the fact. But, violence will unsue.
    If someone is on your property at night you going to ask, why? They carrying a long black object that you can’t identify on your property. What are you going to do ask them to hold it up to the light and see if its a camera or gun?
    I don’t know what kind of neighborhood you live in but those are grounds for me going for my own gun. Maybe not to shoot and kill them but I would take the same actions as the guards.
    Those pictures aren’t those paps right to have. If they trespassed on private property (the article says it was held at Gisselle’s house) those guards had every right to get them back.
    Lastly, wtf is “frog-marched”?

  53. smehrnama says: Apr 5, 2009 6:37 PM

    With that sort of aim, maybe Gisele can get the Redskins to give up all their draft choices and Jason Campbell…

  54. KWR says: Apr 5, 2009 6:38 PM

    Well, now we know where Burress got a new job…

  55. joe6606 says: Apr 5, 2009 6:40 PM

    “technically you can do anything to protect your property.
    Once you’re trespassing you’re fair game”
    Sadly, this is clearly NOT correct. If you asked most Americans this quest, at least 75% think that they can or should be able to protect their private property by any means necessary, including deadly force.
    Unfortunately the law does not agree.
    One of the 1st cases you’ll read in property law is law school is a case where some dude’s hunting cabin is broken into and his property stolen and destroyed several times. Frustrated, the cabin owner rigged a gun to fire if someone broke into the house. Someone broke into the cabin and was shot in the leg. The trepasser sued the cabin owner..and won. He even admitted at trial that the reason he was inside the cabin was that was intending to break into it so that he could steal stuff..
    (the TLDR justification: what if there was some emergency where a child was seeking help and broke into the cabin to seek safety and then got shot, or what if the police or firemen had to enter the cabin for some legitimate reason)
    Yeah..there are many laws that just are not right

  56. Chev says: Apr 5, 2009 6:41 PM

    Ahem………BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

  57. theVIC says: Apr 5, 2009 6:44 PM

    Giselle is smoking hot. She can do whatever the hell she wants.
    And so can Tom Brady, with that cute little cleft chin of his.

  58. Ganggreen86 says: Apr 5, 2009 6:55 PM

    lol@the gross mischaracterization of the Castle Doctrine. Boy, this makes studying for finals a whole lot more entertaining!

  59. theVIC says: Apr 5, 2009 6:58 PM

    Hey silverdeer, it’s just what Americans do.
    They assume that the whole world operates just like their country full of ignorant fatasses does.

  60. theVIC says: Apr 5, 2009 7:01 PM

    ===”if they were on private property, good!
    serves the bastards right, photogs are the scum of the earth”=====
    Are they any scummier than the fat, ignorant masses who keep buying the crap magazines in which these photogs’ pictures eventually end up?
    These photogs would have no market in which to sell their product if the world weren’t full of a bunch of idiots with an insatiable appetite for peering into the lives of people whose personal details shouldn’t concern them.

  61. bonecity7 says: Apr 5, 2009 7:07 PM

    silverdeer,
    you can’t possibly be right….if you were right, the pompous ass, vox veritas, would have pointed that out when he was insulting the rest of the posters for not reading florio’s entry properly/correctly.
    BTW, vox, please impress us all with the individuals you’ve seen that were arrested for smuggling drugs into the country and what their exact punishment was. I’m sure we’d all like to read about the ones smuggling from Canada to the US in particular…..it would be good to compare apples and apples.

  62. MaineMan says: Apr 5, 2009 7:10 PM

    First of all, as only a couple of commenters have noted, it was in Costa Rica. While the laws may well be similar to ours, the justice system may not be quite as strict and the leeway for the private security of rich folk may be somewhat broader. Not meant as a criticism of Costa Rica, just that the conditions on the ground for law enforcement professionals (like understaffed) may be a lot more difficult than in the US.
    Also, Gisele’s regular security detail probably wouldn’t have had the manpower to cover the wedding and no doubt they contract out to local security guys who may, as SOP, exercise somewhat less restraint in firing on a**holes than the everyday guys who might work this job in the US and Europe.

  63. HaveYouQuitYourDayJob says: Apr 5, 2009 7:15 PM

    Lame, Fluoride, Lame,
    Save this shit for the TMZ crowd, I know its slow, but c’mon man.
    Perhaps you should break up the rumor mill into two parts, one part football stories, one part for your instatiable need for mouse clicks.
    Posting this crap your like the paparazzi themselves, …duck interblog boy!

  64. CanadianVikingFan says: Apr 5, 2009 7:19 PM

    Maybe they should of used a rocket launcher.

  65. Dorchester Frank says: Apr 5, 2009 7:20 PM

    Who give as fat-shit about this? Is this news for the NFL? Florio you are an idiot. As is your posting twit buddy “Vox Veritas says”. The Patriots had nothing to do with this. The NFL had nothing to do with this. And Tom Brady had nothing to do with this. Get a life you busy-body women.

  66. promichael says: Apr 5, 2009 7:22 PM

    This is great in Costa Rica they have the correct gun laws
    or is it no gun laws, to be able to handle the Paparazzi!!!

  67. Dukekit says: Apr 5, 2009 7:32 PM

    I can’t believe that “the kids” can’t afford to have guards with automatic weapons.
    Jack Bauer might be out of work soon. He would have gotten those pictures.

  68. dvh1000 says: Apr 5, 2009 7:41 PM

    Florio,
    Maybe you can send Gisele a copy of Quarterback of the Future to help her pass the time in jail.

  69. deckman says: Apr 5, 2009 7:43 PM

    you don’t think anyone feels sorry for those harrasing interlopers do ya

  70. BuckFutter says: Apr 5, 2009 7:46 PM

    I like all this anti-paparazzi sentiment.
    As though any of you have ever been inconvenience by them….
    And as though any one of you wouldn’t have checked out the pics if Gisele’s boob fell right out of her dress.

  71. BlueElvis says: Apr 5, 2009 7:58 PM

    Of course, Saint Tom can do no wrong.
    The comments here are unbelievable. You really think it’s okay to shoot at someone, possibly kill someone, for taking a picture?

  72. blackglass3 says: Apr 5, 2009 8:00 PM

    @ arosen36
    And YOU are one of those people who think some choppy ass film, recorded by an intern, that wasn’t deciphered for days is the reason for the 3 Lombardi trophies that reside at 1 Patriot Place. If it was just because of recording defensive signals they won then A) Why have the Patriots gone 28-6 since it was reported and B) Why didn’t they win Super Bowl 37, 40, or 41 before it was reported?

  73. HarrisonHits says: Apr 5, 2009 8:21 PM

    Ok everybody’s talking about another country’s laws without knowing dick about them. Sounds like Costa Rica actually has fairly strict laws and shooting like this is a big no no.
    The internet has yielded to me the following –
    Costa Rica is a country which has very strict gun laws. To the contrary, carrying a knife is commonly seen, such as machetes and pocket knives, because they are typically considered “tools” for a trade.
    It is not uncommon to see a man walking down the street with a machete. Usually that man has his machete holstered; however, if it is not holstered, it is usually because he is about to do yard work. Many Costa Ricans don’t own lawnmowers, so they edge their grass with machetes.
    Gun Ownership and Transport
    Gun ownership is somewhat frowned upon by Costa Ricans so owning a gun as a foreigner is somewhat difficult. Those without residency may have a harder time legally owning a gun. There are ways around this; however, it requires one to have a corporation and register the gun under their name and the reasoning for needing the gun as protection as a corporation owner or board member.
    The admission of firearms and ammunition in to the territory of Costa Rica are subject to restrictions and import permits approved by the Costa Rican government.
    Applications to import “non-military” style weapons (Costa Rica’s military was abolished in 1949 and any item or action with regard to military and war is highly frowned upon) to Costa Rica must be filed by or through a licensed importer, or authorized dealer. No automatic rifles, grenades, or mines are allowed in Costa Rica; therefore any war weapon in hands of a non-authorized individual is illegal in Costa Rica by definition.
    With the influx of Nicaraguan and Colombian immigrants, more and more ex-pat business owners are purchasing weapons to protect themselves from violent crime usually attributed to robbery; however, obtaining a permit as a non-resident is becoming more difficult.
    Once again, in order to carry a gun concealed or open-carry, you must have a carry permit and that is only issued to residents of Costa Rica or business owners of a Costa Rican Corporation who have a legitimate reason of why they need to carry a gun e.g “I go to the bank with large amounts of cash for daily bank drops”.
    More at –
    http://www.livecostarica.net/?q=node/102

  74. HarrisonHits says: Apr 5, 2009 8:33 PM

    “Pats players are the only ones that I’ve seen get deals for getting busted smuggling narcotics into the country.”
    ROFL yeah right. People make deals every day in our legal system. Especially in drug cases. Famous people and atheletes get deals all the time all over the world for that matter, the US is far from alone in that respect.
    I know you’re usually blinded by Romo’s balls bouncing off your chin but surely you can do better than a claim everyone knows is not the case.

  75. litzsout619 says: Apr 5, 2009 9:05 PM

    This poor A-hole got what he deserved! Bout time these idiots got dealt with properly, Princess D would ll still be alive :)

  76. emoser says: Apr 5, 2009 9:15 PM

    “BuckFutter says:
    I like all this anti-paparazzi sentiment.
    As though any of you have ever been inconvenience by them….”
    No, and I’ve never been raped either but I still don’t like rapists. Is that OK with you?

  77. Rasputin says: Apr 5, 2009 9:25 PM

    “Send those lads to the firing range.”
    — Princess Di

  78. foober says: Apr 5, 2009 9:52 PM

    brady and the pats are gestapo people. Whoever gets in the way they take care of. The pats cheat big time and the nfl trys to cover it up. Brady and his nazi wife try and shoot some people and it trys to get covered up.

  79. virtualplague says: Apr 5, 2009 9:52 PM

    Vox is probably the biggest douchebag on the entire planet.
    I hope he breaks into someones house in Texas.

  80. gavinmac says: Apr 5, 2009 10:10 PM

    Pretty boy Florio is actually correct that this is and should be a major NFL story. Imagine if Ray Lewis was getting married and his security “entourage” shot at photographers. A lot of people would be talking about what a thug he is an trying to get him punished by the league.
    If Goodell wants to appear to be unbiased towards the Patriots or unbiased in favor of white quarterbacks, he needs to fully investigate this issue and interrogate Brady in the same way he would treat Mike Vick. I already have a few questions about this:
    1. Why does everyone accept that this was “Mrs. Brady’s” security detail? They weren’t at a fashion show, they were at the couple’s wedding. Isn’t it in the newlyweds’ interests to claim that it was “her” security, so that Brady doesn’t get fined or suspended? It souns to me like it was THEIR security.
    2. Who paid for the security to be there? Is this their permanent full time security detal or some local Costa Ricans they hired off the street?
    3. Did Brady know they were armed? Why were they armed? How often does Brady travel with armed security? Did he have any discussion with them about under what circumstances they should and should not shoot at people? Why not? What instructions were given to them about how far they should go to keep the photographers out? Did Brady authorize his armed goons to detain the photographers by force and seize their film? Isn’t that why O.J. is in prison?
    4. What is the NFL’s policy on shooting incidents from a player’s “security” detail or “entourage”? Can the player be punished? If not, why did Pacman Jones get suspended?
    5. Granted, if I were a super-rich famous white guy marrying a super- rich famous white woman in front of 25 super-rich guests in a violent, lawless third world country, I think it would be prudent to foe me to have armed security. That seems more reasonable to me than bringing a gun to an American urban club in your sweatpants. Of course, that might be a hard thing for Goodell to explain to African-American players if he gives Brady a pass.

  81. Mike D says: Apr 5, 2009 10:15 PM

    I’d like to fire shots at Gisele. Shots of love butter, that is….

  82. Philtration says: Apr 5, 2009 10:28 PM

    Good thing it was not at Jay Cutler’s wedding or he would have been blamed for the North Korean missile launch and JFK’s assassination by now.

  83. VonClausewitz says: Apr 5, 2009 10:38 PM

    I’m surprised more of these incidents don’t occur. We don’t live in a world in which high net worth individuals can get on with their lives without dealing with parasites. That’s just the reality of it. What does this mean? It means that stars have to take defensive measures and build a legally defensible proxy layer. It means that they have to hire drivers and security. It means that security will take its job seriously. It means that bullets will get fired, whether that’s in a legitimate situation or whether it’s the result of over zealousness. These are the consequences. And I don’t blame the people for protecting themselves.
    The real problem is that if these private security forces become more and more prevalent the line between self-defense and sanctioned killing on behalf of the wealthy will become very hard to distinguish. Where this leads shouldn’t be too hard to guess.

  84. Vox Veritas says: Apr 6, 2009 12:03 AM

    “lol@the gross mischaracterization of the Castle Doctrine.”
    I hope you’re not directing that at me.
    http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R/billtext/html/SB00378F.htm
    AN ACT
    relating to the use of force or deadly force in defense of a person.
    BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF TEXAS:
    […]
    (a) Except as provided in Subsection (b), a person is
    justified in using force against another when and to the degree the actor reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect the actor [himself] against the other’s use or attempted use of unlawful force. The actor’s belief that the force was immediately necessary as described by this subsection is presumed to be reasonable if the actor:
    (1) knew or had reason to believe that the person
    against whom the force was used:
    (A) unlawfully and with force entered, or was
    attempting to enter unlawfully and with force, the actor’s
    occupied habitation, vehicle, or place of business or
    employment;
    (B) unlawfully and with force removed, or was
    attempting to remove unlawfully and with force, the actor
    from the actor’s habitation, vehicle, or place of business or
    employment; or
    (C) was committing or attempting to commit
    aggravated kidnapping, murder, sexual assault, aggravated
    sexual assault, robbery, or aggravated robbery;

  85. Vox Veritas says: Apr 6, 2009 12:11 AM

    “BTW, vox, please impress us all with the individuals you’ve seen that were arrested for smuggling drugs into the country and what their exact punishment was. I’m sure we’d all like to read about the ones smuggling from Canada to the US in particular…..it would be good to compare apples and apples. ”
    OK.
    http://www.rutlandherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070802/NEWS01/708020369/1002/NEWS01
    A couple who smuggled a prescription painkiller from Canada into Vermont by hiding it in their body cavities will each serve 1-1/2 years in federal prison.
    Thanks for playing.

  86. Vox Veritas says: Apr 6, 2009 12:15 AM

    “I know you’re usually blinded by Romo’s balls bouncing off your chin”
    Freud said that you can always tell the fags because they’re always talking about fag shit like that. But he said it in German.

  87. Vox Veritas says: Apr 6, 2009 12:17 AM

    “Vox is probably the biggest douchebag on the entire planet.”
    You probably lead a very sheltered life in an existence where your mom’s apron strings are never more than 50 feet away.

  88. dacdaveas says: Apr 6, 2009 12:34 AM

    yeah my only question is where was plaxico when all this went down? hmmmm

  89. Kevin from Philly says: Apr 6, 2009 8:06 AM

    Vox: 44-6. Thanks for playing.

  90. realityonetwo says: Apr 6, 2009 8:31 AM

    Pigs will fly before I give a rat’s ass about some NFL player’s WIFE…

  91. chcgokoala says: Apr 6, 2009 8:43 AM

    Brady… Shotgun… Wedding…
    Snap, it works on so many levels!

  92. Vox Veritas says: Apr 6, 2009 9:00 AM

    Kevin: 53-43. The Eagirls have a losing record against every other NFCE team. They hold a slim one game lead against the wholly inept Cardinals, a former NFCE team. Eat shit, just like the Eagirls.
    Also, looks like they were Brady’s goons.
    http://www.nypost.com/seven/04062009/news/nationalnews/pow_pow_at_gisele_vows_163138.htm
    Aviles said he and colleague Yuri Cortez, both veteran photographers hired by the INF photo agency, had permission from Gisele’s neighbor in Santa Teresa to shoot the wedding ceremony from a vista about 300 feet away from the ceremony.
    Brady and Gisele were married in Los Angeles County in February, and were renewing their vows on Saturday. Just as the photographers started snapping, the couple’s bodyguards spotted them and chased them, according to Aviles.
    The pair ran back to Cortez’s Suzuki SUV, parked about 500 feet away in dense brush.
    They split up as they ran away, and by the time Aviles said he reached the SUV, his colleague was already there speaking to a Brady bodyguard.
    Aviles quoted the guard as saying, “Tom Brady just wants to talk to you. It’s OK, nothing’s going to happen.

  93. bonecity7 says: Apr 6, 2009 9:50 AM

    Vox,
    You have no friends, do you?
    Your example of the Vermont couple detailed a smuggling episode that covered three years and involved 20,000 pills. Kaczur was caught with 202 pills and it was his only known transgression. How can a guy like you, who is obviously infatuated with your own percieved intelligence, try to pass that off as apples and apples? You make yourself look foolish in doing so.
    I second the comment that Vox is the biggest douchebag on the planet.
    All those in favor, please acknowledge.

  94. Vox Veritas says: Apr 7, 2009 12:16 AM

    bonercity… sorry, couldn’t find another instance of an NFL player getting caught smuggling 202 oxycontin pills up his ass on the second tuesday of a month beginning with “A” on the very same road that Pats’ drug smuggling dealer was caught on. You asked for someone who went to jail for smuggling drugs from Canada, I went the extra mile and found some oxycontin smugglers.
    Did the guy even get a ticket for it?

  95. Rossy P says: Apr 8, 2009 10:08 PM

    Has this idiot forgot that he play football for a living? He looks like more of a movie star than a football player.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!