Slashdot Mirror
Suicide Caught on Surveillance Tape Appears Online
Jason writes "Reuters reports (and News.com mirrors) that the video of a man who shot himself after his girlfriend broke up with him has appeared online under the heading of 'Introducing: The Self-Cleansing Housing Projects.' It goes on to say that the police officers receive no training to deal with privacy issues."
It came up a few minutes ago but not it doesn't!
p hp?s=&threadid=12959
http://forums.consumptionjunction.com/showthread.
OK, this is sad and all, and the cops shouldn't post this stuff on the web (assuming they did), but this quote kills me (not literally, of course):
My child was killed twice," she said. "The first time he did it to himself. The second time, online did it to him."
My god, what will online do next? Won't somebody think of the children?!
everything in moderation
One wouldn't think this would need training, it should be common sense that something like that video shouldn't be shared.
I seriously hope that was a feeble attempt at humour. Otherwise it is really, really disturbing that people actually want to watch this.
So what's the big deal? The Faces of Death commercial videos have featured stuff like that for years.
Its sick that that would be able to get online, the family must feel terrible, watch some news station go and have a field day with it
"headline news at 5:30, we'll show you the website to download the movie police dont want you to see
Its even worse when some news station (xof) goes and exploits things like this
I dont know what sickens me more - that people flock to see this so much, or that they put it up in Windows Media Format!!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
At least its not a 'how to' or a Suicide FAQ.
Hmm... Sounds like a whole company could be created around this whole thing: Suicide'R'us.
Only problem is that business keeps dropping off....
Either that or they don't have any repeat customers.
1) He was named "Paris Lane"? like some bastard cross between Paris Hilton and Lois Lane but about 10E8 less sexy?
2) This is low-incoming housing, right? where did he get money for a gun if the taxpayers are helping him pay rent?
3) does dead people have actual rights regarding privacy? I mean, pretty sure that there are laws against defiling a corpse, but suicide is considered felon in like 9 states anyway, and I am pretty sure felons get less rights than regular people... still beats getting your body dragged through the streets and buried at a crossroad w/ a stake through the heart, though (old english punishment for suicide)
4) erm... this appeared on a... pornography website?
I don't care if you mod me up or mod me down, somebody at least answer the questions
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Good to see our law enforcement is doing such a bang up job.
Yeah, cuz it's ok to watch people blowing up if it's a movie ... it's make belief...
You're prolly the same type of person who thinks wearing "faux fur" is ok because it's not real fur and therefor not really symbolic of skinning an animal and wearing it's fur...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Im on for 50 that some senator will pass an emergency law making searching, viewing, downloading or even caching this file carry upto 20 years jail. I'd tend to agree with him on this one - you simply cannot have people encoding in windows media format, its just not right!
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
don't give anyone a new idea for goatse links
Maybe it's not sensitivity training that the cops need, maybe it's that they shouldn't have access to surveilance tapes. Or maybe the suicide was supposed to be public. In a public place your image is not your property, but this still definitely qualifies as an invasion of privacy.
Generally, though, it's not aout whether the cop should be more sensitive about what he puts on the web, it's that he shouldn't be allowed to put anything from a surveilance camera on the web, or he should be able to put all of it on the web. Either the unfortunate Mr. Lane committed suicide in public, or he didn't. We still haven't figured out here [the US: I'm not talking about slashdot or places like the UK where these cameras are more ubiquitous and widely accepted] which we value more: privacy or freedom of information.
Do something about world hunger. Click here
The big deal isn't so much that someone killed themselves and has it on tape, this happens all the time. It's the fact that police officers recieve no privacy training, meaning your shit, much of which they have access, or can get access to, is no longer safe once they have it.
The "Insert Quote Here" line is almost as predictable as inserting an actual quote.
After seeing that video where a russian soldier gets beheaded, I have vowed not to watching videos like this anymore. If anything else, it desensitizes us about humanity. Sure lot of bad things happen in the world but that doesn't mean we need to watch it night and day. Some people seemed to be obsessed with watching these stuff almost to the level that they are addicted to it. Now that is pornographic.
Activists United
After the "inconclusive evaluation" of the use of cameras last year in a particular area in Edmonton, the police in Edmonton are going to try and "evaluate" them again. What's sickening is that people aren't fighting back against this. Sure, there are crimes committed, but the cameras caught one car theft and one guy holding a gun. That's all for a cost of $46000.
Yes, you read correctly, $46000. That's roughly the cost of putting a cop on the streets for half a year.
Fight back against the use of cameras as much as possible. Otherwise, Big Brother may creep up on us without us realizing it.
Hellloooo...
The Bud Dwyer suicide film is 1000x worse than this. I've got a steel gut, and that shit gave me nightmares for 3 nights straight.
It's a shame that it's on the internet - whoever posted it should be fired. That said, it's amazing how calm the guy is and how little blood/brains there are.
Why would they name it [Introducing: The Self-Cleansing Housing Projects.]?
I read the article (both actually -- sorry!). It seems that at least one of the websites that host(ed) the video has a racist leaning. And, presumably, they're trying to make a metaphor about young aspiring rap stars (or blacks in general if you prefer) to the effect that they are "trash" that needs to be cleaned from housing projects (as in be removed or killed).
Since this young man killed himself in the housing project of which he was a part (in a sense, since he lived there), according to the metaphor describe above, the housing project in question "cleaned" itself by removing (killing) this "trash".
Mods please note that those are not my sentiments in any way. I am just trying to help the parent understand the (apparently racist) footage title.
everything in moderation
Hopefully these will encourage others to be pro-choice with regards to offing oneself. I think the right to leave is very fundamental.
-I am an elective eunuch.
Uh, huh? Why would they name it that?
Maybe you were being sarcastic, but I think the joke was that you don't need to worry about getting poor, uneducated people out of the ghetto.. they'll do it themselves (through suicide).
Part of me can't believe this is happening but the other, more cynical part of me thinks that this is just a sign of things to come as our population grows and our technological prowess pervades most corners of society. Cameras are so small and so inexpensive now...we're moving past the science fiction of last century.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we should look at this not as some sort of horrific "thing" but more as a new by-product of our decreasing privacy. Time to break out the psychology books...
...then again, what was that sci-fi book with the apartments with clear walls?
..unlike a corrupt cop.
A cop wouldn't betray the public trust, you say?
They call it 'Introducing: The Self-Cleansing Housing Projects' because, if the tenants kill themselves, the housing projects clean themselves out. 'Housing Projects' as in the ghetto.
From what I understand, he was in the public. Why is there such a big concern for privacy? If somebody shoots themselves in front of a large crowd, is their mother going to come out a few days later and say "all those people in the crowd should be sued for seeing my son shoot himself" I think not. This is not so much a privacy issue as it is an ethics issue.
-- johntracy.com, because everybody else is wrong.
Death by suicide is more common than death by murder.
In other breaking news, people enjoy seeing graphic imagery!!
Also, police are assholes.
Film at 11.
...is because watching people die in front of your eyes scares you shitless and gives you nightmares and occupies your thoughts. No bad thing, the same is probably true of me. (But luckily I've never seen anybody actually dying close-up in full graphic colour in real time.)
God bless his poor soul
Courtesy of Mickey
Yeah, right.
Some poor miserable person, in agony (or, a stupid fool we are better off without) has died. What in the hell are we doing "rubbernecking" on the information superhighway at this crash?
This is neither news for nerds (news for morbid voyeurs?) nor is the fact that a death has been photographed "stuff (snuff) that matters".
Let's put this thread (and the subject) to rest.
I'm somewhat qualified to comment on this situation as my brother did the same thing. He took his own life shortly after spending part of his day playing pool with me. I believe that he had chosen to kill himself way before and spent the day with me for my benefit. It's how I will remember him. I thank him for that. It will have been two years now come this June.
His choice of location would not have afforded a videotape and I am glad for that as well. Not a day goes by that I don't miss him. I don't think being reminded of it online ala "The Star Wars Kid" is appropriate. I really feel for the family. It's not easy at ALL to go through that with someone so close to you. I would imagine all the people joking and laughing here have never experienced the situation.
As with many of the stories you see online you don't know all the facts. However it seems to me to be a situation of double stupidity. Not only do you have a heartless bastard posting the video online...he is also a racist. I can only hope that life's karma catches up with him. Maybe one day I'll have mod points and meet him in real life.
-M
...that one abrogates some privacy rights when committing a crime (suicide is....) in a public place?
I wouldn't watch the video of the soldier getting beheaded becouse that is a man of honnor being attacked.
I did want to see the guy shooting himself. Morbid curreosity.
I also made sure I ate nothing first.
I don't think it would desensitive me (unless I saw it a lot).
First it's "Hah suiside. One less loser"
Next it's morbid curreosity.
Then it's "wow look how cold he is like he's lost his soul or something" a bit of understanding. Getting in a persons head is something I do. Imperfictly of course my thoughts come first so by bisses cancle out...
Then... BLAM...
For a split second you might even feel something cold running down your neck. It's just your mind playing tricks on you and other tricks as well.
Being in a persons head kinda makes you unready for tragic things like that.
Then your not laughing anymore.
However the people who are part of that website making the commenst they do are already desensitised and they've never seen this before.
I don't actually exist.
Actually, people do seem to interested in seeing this stuff. That's why Ogrish exists. And no, I don't enjoy seeing it or even ever visit the site. But, for those crazy folk that like it, there's a place for them. That's all I'm saying.
Hexy - a strategy game for iPhone/iPod Touch
For those in more sensitive environments, be aware that the link in the parent post contains some porn ad banners.
In George Carlin's latest act, he talks about how someone should make an 'All-Suicide Channel' because that's the ultimate reality TV. And people would line up to watch. That's essentially what's beginning to happen here. It wouldn't be the first time Carlin predicted a trend. A few years back, he predicted that some nut would go apeshit and shoot up a church. Not more than six months later, it happened for the first time. One last thing - you people that thinks a man killing himself is funny, go back to Fark, where you belong.
"I can still see the vid and I'm laughing harder the first time than I did the first or second."
--LordKaT
I shouldn't even have to explain why it's more than just a little disturbing that three moderators saw fit to publically mark this comment as "Funny".
Why would police officers get training on dealing with privacy issues? Their job is to capture criminals, not ensure their privacy.
'Sides, it should be a matter of good taste to not post the tape of someone killing themself on the internet. Afterall, how concerned is he with his privacy now that he is dead.
Derek Greene
Nobody's real mother gets to see their real kid really die in a movie (usually). In that sense, yeah, make-believe makes a difference I'm afraid.
That said, I am disturbed by the lack of sex in our violence (most American media). I prefer boobies and butts to entrails and gaping wounds.
everything in moderation
Web-cam equipped suicide booth anyone??
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
Joe: You can't take something off the Internet. It's like taking pee out of a swimming pool
I'd say he's been immortalized by the internet. I used to have a huge collection of bizzare, funny, disturbing, etc things collected from around the net. It was the most accessed section of the web-site. Whenever I'd forget to All Access Pass it, I'd do several gigs of transfer in a single day. I pulled it because it conflicted with my other interests. Like running a nice clean site. If you want to build a very popular site very fast, collecting internet pulp culture is the way to do it. If you can stomach it.
The mom should counter by posting embarressing pictures of her son so he's not remembered as that guy who blew his brains out. Perhaps as that guy who burned his eyebrows off when he was 12.
But somehow I don't think that will work as well.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
I want to watch it out of morbid curiousity. You should visit www.ogrish.com, and take a brief look around. I don't visit daily, or masturbate to any of the pictures/videos; I am just curious. Haven't you ever wondered what happens to the human body when it falls 20 stories, or is ran over by a truck? You never see those things on the news. I don't understand why there is such a negative stigma associated with it. Nobody cries for the children when they show (real) trauma patients' injuries (bones sticking out!) and surgeries on television. Why should deaths be any different?
As far as I have heard this video was sent out of the cop shop to a friend, the cop's friend was pissed about the privacy issues concerning this video so he sent it to a few people... This seemed to have ended up in the hands of a pastor who have a son with interest in the video and an account on c..junction.com
The thing I wonder about all this is the effects for us in terms of seeing this kind of imagry - sites like the above, ogrish.com, and rotten.com.. Should we be able to handle it?
1) He was named "Paris Lane"? like some bastard cross between Paris Hilton and Lois Lane but about 10E8 less sexy?
Probably not
2) This is low-incoming housing, right? where did he get money for a gun if the taxpayers are helping him pay rent?
Something that your middle-class self might not be aware of: There are some places in this country where a gun is almost a neccessity for security. Just because you live in a nice neighborhood where you don't have to worry about someone breaking in, doesn't mean that the rest of the world is like that.
3) does dead people have actual rights regarding privacy? I mean, pretty sure that there are laws against defiling a corpse, but suicide is considered felon in like 9 states anyway, and I am pretty sure felons get less rights than regular people... still beats getting your body dragged through the streets and buried at a crossroad w/ a stake through the heart, though (old english punishment for suicide)
The legality has very little to do with the real issue here: Step out of your preconventional morality world.
4) erm... this appeared on a... pornography website?
No.
Here's a question for you: Why ask such stupid questions? Usually a joke takes some sort of form, instead of being merely a random combination of offensive and/or redundant statements.
A lot of people are going to complain about a lot of things, but really, why do officers need training to realize that they shouldn't put a surveillance tape of a guy shooting himself in public view? That should be common fucking sense. I realize that common sense isn't either, but if you don't have the level of common sense to know to keep this thing out of public hands, you should be fired from the police department.
You shouldn't need to train people for this kind of thing.
So stupid.
This isn't a news bit for computer people.
This isn't something that genuinely matters to the general public.
Yes, 1)The original poster is a creep, and 2)there should be less cameras. We all agree, so what's the point of putting it on slashdot?
/b
|f(x)dx = F(b) - F(a)
Hey, everyone else is running out to see Mel Gibsons snuff film. Whats wrong with this one?
"Online", in this case, is intentionally vague, and means "deep pockets". I'm willing to bet (a lot) there's a lawyer involved in this, who will do his damndest to haul into court the NY Housing Authority, or the security company, or the NYPD or the manufacturer of the surveillance equipment or the property owner or the website owner or HUD or anyone else who might have both some implied control over the property or the tapes and an insurance policy that will cover the liability.
And in the name of protecting the privacy of the victim (who needs no protection, and probably didn't give a rat's ass about it at the time he shot himself) the lawyer will show the tape over and over (traumatizing the family, who I doubt needed to see the tape) to a judge and/or jury to convince them that somehow a grave wrong has been perpetrated by someone somewhere (who would show the tape to anyone else, or email it, or publish it on a website, or who didn't stop the act in the first place). If the lawyer does his job and finds someone with both responsibility and the means to pay, some court will direct that funds be moved to the lawyer.... errr, I mean to the aggrieved party.
This is why there are insurance companies, why there are lawyers, and why there are civil courts. This isn't a story about suicide, privacy, race, youth, or public housing. It's economics. For every kid who blows his brains out on camera there are a whole bunch who do it in private. Damn shame. When it makes the news it's because some lawyer is making a move to collect money--most likely on contingency. This is a disgusting story, and the outcome is guaranteed to be just as disgusting.
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
GET SOME PRIORITIES!!!
The family doesn't need to see this on the web, regardless of the format!
"I want my son's tape off that Web completely." I don't think this woman understands the nature of the Internet... I'll bet the Star Wars Kid wanted *that* tape off this Web completely as well. That didn't turn out so well.
Millions of people watched the slaughter of hundreds of thousands of animals and humans on a massive scale live as entertainment for centuries. Barbaric as that may have been, this is only disturbing insomuch as it reveals an aspect of human nature(a curiosity about death) which frightens and disturbs us but which is none the less still very real.
- "Hear that?! The percolations are imminent! Cease your ingress!"
I read the headline 5 times, and I still have no clue what it says.
I hate sigs.
Apparently? I guess the troll who responded that "n***ers are trash" is also "apparently" racist.
It's sad when we have to act sensitive to the feelings of those who don't give a damn about anyone's feelings.
It's reverse political correctness.
Sure, there are crimes committed, but the cameras caught one car theft and one guy holding a gun.
The camera also prevented an unknown number of crimes in that area... Most criminals aren't dumb enough to comitt a crime within the viewable area of a well-known camera operated by the police. How many crimes were reported there before the camera was put up?
Sure, some of this crime will move to other parts of the city, but at least the good people are no longer scared away from a business district. No wonder the business owners want the camera there.
(Warning: if you're a girly-man, don't click!!) Some of the best ones are
Yeah, right.
cause I have a girlfriend at home and i love he
Crazy? You forgot to prefix the "IANAP". Even people that arn't psychologists are aware of the different interests people have. What makes one interest more disturbing than another? You seem to have a healthy obsession with early 90's style html on your homepage, does that make you any more crazy than someone who has a fixation on death?
Do the world a favor and leave the psychoanalysis to the people that go to school for it.
Learn something new.
1. Vince Foster committed suicide outside at a public park and the government was allowed to withhold photos. The Supreme Court unaminously ruled that the right to privacy attached to family even if the person in the photos is dead. Justice Kennedy wrote, "Family members have a personal stake in honoring and mourning their dead and objecting to unwarranted public exploitation that, by intruding upon their own grief, tends to degrade the rites and respect they seek to accord to the deceased person who was once their own."
If a private individual took photos or otherwise recorded the incident, they may not be bound by the same rules as the government. However, the police probably couldn't have released the suicide video nor could have the public housing authorities since they are publicly funded.
If there were no privacy for deceased individuals or their family, sick fucks could get photos of their (or other criminal's) victims from through the Freedom of Information Act.
IAAL but this is not legal advice.
If you actually click the link you will see that the video is broken anyway.
I just posted it because Google IS censoring this page.
I saw the preview of this story so I went to google and searched for "'Introducing: The Self-Cleansing Housing Projects.'". And the page came up. If you think I'm a sick fuck for wanting to see what the fuss is about then go ahead and feel that way. Personally I think censorship of any kind is more offensive than anything you'll find on rotten.com or what have you.
Anyway I tried the search a few minutes later and the page was gone. Stuff doesn't usually just disappear out of google like that.
I like google, I depend on it, and I expect google to find what I'm looking for if it exists on the web at all. While I don't usually search for this sort of thing, it definitely irritates me that google is now deciding what I should and shouldn't see.
And yes I do think it's socially and morally repugnant to post stuff like this on the web. But it's a far lesser offense than censoring it.
I've seen it. It was at consumptionjunction, but it looks like it's been taken down.
In America's republic, online kills you!
I guarantee you this dead guy doesn't give a rats ass about his privacy rights right now. Once your dead, who cares?
Or put another way, what you are saying is that for the low cost of $46,000, these police cameras reduced crime in a certain area to only two offenses in a year? Sounds like a success to me.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
Here's the main issue - why did the cop think it was ok to pass evidence and/or private property outside the department?
Sure, it was video of a public act, but the tape was private property, and the cops had it as evidence. That a cop was stupid enough to let it out is a big problem. Next time it might be personal videos frmo a murder victim's closet.
That's a pretty shitty joke if it takes that much explaination to make any sense of. Ok, so racist porn site managers aren't exactly the best source in the world for comedy gold, but Jesus, I could come up with a better line than that drunk, and it'd probably be twice as offensive. I'd have worked Kurt Cobain into it, at least. Maybe something about hillbillies being shot with tazers.
This is one of those rare examples when someone deserves a +1 for Flamebait. :-)
"Hey, everyone else is running out to see Mel Gibsons snuff film. Whats wrong with this one?"
This guy's real, Jesus wasn't.
Say what you want about religion, but we're definitely sure the actor who played Jesus was not fatally harmed during the making of the movie. He was, however, struck by lightning.
Let's put this thread (and the subject) to rest."
Sorry. I call bullshit.
The tagline also reads "Stuff that Matters".
Does this matter? Hell yes it does. The fact that it showed up on CJ first as opposed to rotten or stile project or orgrish is irrelevant.
Having said that...
[RANT]
We are so distanced from the realities of our existence on this planet that it's ridiculous. Case in point? Meat. You like eating meat? Cool. Seen any video on how it's processed (i.e. how cows are killed, skinned and cut up)?? Seen the video(s) of how dogs and cats are prepared in other countries? Dolphins being clubbed and left floating in the water by Japanese tuna fishermen? Most important is some of the video of the end result of eating too much animal protein -- if you've never seen what arterial plaque looks like, I suggest hunting up some of the video. Preferably the surgical stuff (alive) as opposed to the forensic stuff (dead).
Horrible video. Probably could have gone my entire life without seeing it. Ultimately it's made me a hell of a lot more thoughtful about what I shove in my piehole.
I also have a very tasteful autopsy photo of a 26 year old who died of a heart attack as a result of morbid obesity next to my monitor at home. Reminds me to get up from my computer, go outside, and get some exercise...
[/RANT]
You don't want to watch it. Fine. Don't. You don't like the subject or the thread? Then go somewhere else. "Suicide Caught on Surveillance Tape Appears Online" is a pretty unambiguous tagline. There's plenty of relevant discussion here.
Try participating in it rather than trying to shut it down.Or you can pull some ad hominem crap and call me a morbid voyeur.
- learn to swim.
and has been for decades, this is not snuff, the only snuff films ever found were from serial killers filming themselves.
faces of death is fake and contains only two scenes (IIRC) of real death, both of which were taken out of news archives.
At least if you have no return customers you can be satisfied in the knowledge that you're doing a good job!
Constitutional rights may be respected, repealed, or modified; but they must never be ignored.
Otherwise it is really, really disturbing that people actually want to watch this.
Ah yes, tell that to the moron in the Honda Civic that almost slammed into me last week. The reason? He was so obsessed with looking at the accident that had happened in the other lane he almost missed his turn.
Humans are unfortunately obsessed with seeing other human's suffering. That's why show's like Cops and Trauma: Life in the ER are so popular. It does not surprise me in the least that people would want to see it. Sad, but true.
Anyone thought that he might have done this in the elevator lobbym knowing that the video camera is there, on purpose?
- learn to swim.
Huh?
What the hell are you talking about?
The space comes from Slashduh's lameness filter, it's meant to prevent page-widening with bazillion-character words without linebreaks.
No one is making them watch it. Welcome to the real world, because, as the number of cameras increase, the number of these incidents will skyrocket.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
Thanks, my answer has been answered. I didnt really see the sarcasm at first. I dont really see how this (parent) thread is Flaimbait now, but eh, whatever -- this is slashdot and woe is me.
No, but Google does have a bias in favor of more popular sites, particularly news sites. If you require two words in the name of the site in your search, the site still comes up. There's a big difference between "censored" and "knocked off the first position" at Google...
Simply put. Sites with higher pagerank, including this one, have started using that phrase and not given a link back to the originating site...
As it has been stated, this isn't about privacy at all, but about character. Police officers are people too, and in any group of people, there will be those with little character. Unfortunately, a cop with 5h1t for character has the ability to hurt people in a especially profound way. Though the person who killed himself can't be done any harm at this point his family and friends can. If an officer posted this and they find out who he/she is, that person doesn't need privacy training, he needs to be fired. Yeah, it happened in a public place and yadda yadda yadda, but for an officer to release this kind of footage is simply distasteful and seems to be unbecoming for a public servent. If you've seen a person lose their life before your eyes, you know that there is nothing entertaining about it. You'd think someone in that line of work would respect that.
...guess the link is dead.
Up watching late-night broadcast TV out of Milwaukee when the movie was interrupted by a late-breaking news story about a guy who tried sticking up a bar, which failed, so he then took some hostages. That went sour so he took himself hostage, and the media showed up during a prolonged standoff. After a minute or so of seeing the backs of people's heads, the cameraman got to an opening and the guy says "I do it now! I do it now!", put the gun to his head, pulled the trigger, and dropped like a stone.
Nah, the poster was trying to be analytical and explain the issue. It is pretty likely that the title was meant to be racist, so "apparently" is appropriate. He could have said "this statement by a sheet wearing KKK motherfucker" and communicated no more.
Drawing conclusions based on a single sentence is dicey. Being conservative in commenting is just the smart way to go.
"Faith: Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without knowledge, of things without parallel." - A.B.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=apparentl y
It can mean readily apparent or visible... sort of like the word obviously. Dont assume the poster meant it was the third definition, thats just an annoying 'common use' meaning.
It was the guns! When are you fucking Yanks going to figure this out? If it wasn't for all the guns in your fucked up society, you wouldn't need the cameras.
Please tell me that you're a Brit. Pleeeease.
May we never see th
so did anyone see the richard jewel beheading? that was disturbing. i have a copy. they hold the head up by the hair and everything.
He's right, that was messed up. And talk about public! I think this Paris guy lost any titular "Right to Privacy" by committing suicide in a public place, but the Bud Dwyer incident set the standard both for sheer nastyness and public dissemination. Hard to get worse than blowing your head off on tv, during the news.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
of personal information about or from a lot of people who are not criminals. And allowing that information to escape into the wild can hurt those non-criminals, or the people they were talking about. Allowing this video to escape has hurt this guy's family. They are already dealing with the tragedy of his suicide. Now he becomes a celebrity for freaks who get off on death, some of them obviously overtly racist, because some cop decided it would be cool to post it somewhere? Boy howdy, THAT is gonna increase my trust in cops.
At the time I posted that it was not coming up AT ALL - even tried giving the domain name. But all the other results that I got before were coming up.
Now the entry in question is back again.... maybe technical issue? Maybe someone changed their mind? Who knows.
:/ ddd
Phillip Morris?
RJR?
Is every crucifix an invasion of Jesus's privacy?
yes.
TrrrrROLL!!!!
BTW, I kinda like the simplicity of that site. Myself, I'd make my site have more features, but...
It wasn't the cameras...
Yea, you're right. He did shoot himself with a gun, not a camera. You're really perceptive for an AC. Dumbass.
Alito: A vote for Alito is a punch in the eye to put that bitch back in her place!
upload it for the rest of us... or bittorrent... get it out your cache...
i'm not sick, i'm just interested.
Just fucking ask yourself if you would want to see your son committing suicide on a web site where freaks beat off to it.
If you need training in order to not release a video like that then you need to be in either a mental institution, or having a life sentence in a super max.
You're not the *least* bit curious what this looks like?
I would watch it. Once.
This could all have been prevented if root would just put a respawn in init for us all.
Shame on you root.
md5sum
d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427e
You're prolly the same type of person who thinks wearing "faux fur" is ok because it's not real fur and therefor not really symbolic of skinning an animal and wearing it's fur...
What an unsupported, misguided analogy.
Faux fur is a celebration of the beauty of animals, and given that no animals were harmed in its production, I don't really see an issue with it. It isn't symbolic of skinning an animal any more than dressing up as a alien for Halloween is symbolic of capturing aliens and parading them through our streets, or putting a picture of a tropical paradise symbolizes boxing the island and installing it in your condo.
Back in the days before half the world knew the internet existed, there used to be a website that was chock full of this stuff. I think it was called the "Death Museum"
They listed photos and videos of famous suicides, grotesque battlefields, and gruesome accidents.
They even claimed to have a photo of Kurt Cobain post-shotgun. Not that there was really much left to confirm it with.
http://chrismetcalf.net
This camera system was installed to improve the safety of these project neighborhoods. It has been abused to provide entertainment to racist demented individuals. This is very wrong.
Grow a sense of humor. You disturb me more than suicide.
The last thing the police need is to have special training on how to ensure privacy. They are overworked, underpaid and already at risk for ethics problems because of the opacity of the legal system.
As a taxpayer and citizen I dont want the police to spend one moment on "privacy issues". I dont want one bit of worry or doubt in their head about it. They should be free to do their jobs in the open free from harassment from privacy nuts. They have a hard job as it is, and do not need more bureaucratic shackles second guessing their every move.
In general, the police and government should have no secrets from the people. The hard truth being in the open is what keeps the system from becoming overly corrupt.
The lesson should be dont shoot yourself on camera if you dont want people to see it,not that the police should be sensitive the feelings of some whacks parents.
woohoo!
Humans are unfortunately obsessed with seeing other human's suffering
While I will fully agree that people have a strange attraction to accident scenes, I don't think the real reason is a desire to see suffering. Instead people just want to be a part, however trivial, of an event. If you can say that you saw the blood in a big accident that covers the news, well damnit you're hot shit because you were a "part" of that event, even as a spectator. It's the same for big accidents, big police busts, amazing events, power outages, whatever -- people want to associate themselves with it somehow.
Just out of curiosity, I wonder how many slashdotters are familiar with the origin of this phrase...
Not all of the Google servers report off of the same dataset. As such there can be variations depending upon which system served your request.
No one needs "privacy training" to discover that it's considered wrong to spread around videos of someone blowing his brains out.
The people who release this kind of stuff to friends and to the internet do not somehow think it's socially acceptable. They do it because they think that no person is going to catch them. And they're quite often correct about that.
So you're saying that if wore a faux human skin outfit that looked exactly like i had skinned somebody alive to create it, I would be celebrating the beauty of humans?
Google did not and cannot censor the page, because Google does not control the publishing of the repugnant page.
Like a library's card catalog, Google is a guide to find information you want. Google has not removed the information you sought, but removed their pointer to that information. That's not the same as burning books or suppressing publication.
Freedom of press does not grant a favorable Google PageRank.
Anyway I tried the search a few minutes later and the page was gone.
That sounds like slashdot alright!
"It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
How would a faux human skin look like you "skinned somebody alive"? Do you mean if you put faux cut marks, and maybe some faux blood on it? If so, then yeah that would be a problem, but if it looks like skin then yes it is a celebration of the beauty of humans.
Is a wig a celebration of scalping?
"Aspiring hip-hop performer Paris Lane, 22, put
the barrel of a 9 mm handgun into his mouth and
pulled the trigger in a lobby of a building at the
Morris Houses after the girl got into the elevator."
At the risk of appearing flippant, thank you Mr. Lame... err Lane.
My eardrums appluad your decision.
You're prolly the same type of person who thinks wearing "faux fur" is ok because it's not real fur and therefor not really symbolic of skinning an animal and wearing it's fur...
No, it's symbolic of my foot in the ass of people who come up with bullshit logic such as this. Jesus, what's wrong with you?
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
We're not talking about "favorable Google PageRank" here, we're talking about suppression of legitimate search results.
WARNING: This Topic Has Exceeded Maximum Number of Tasteless Posts Allowed
I don't think I've seen so many "Funny Score: 0" comments in my life. Slashdotters, please grow souls. Hell probably isn't a fun place.
It puts the lotion on it's skin, or it gets the hose!
So should the media stop showing films of any accidents where people die - I know I don't want to see any graphic images, but I've seen the film of both Space Shuttles blow up repeated without anybody being outraged.
What about all the images of bomb drops released by the US in the Gulf War 1 + 2. You do realise that the little dots running around (and then not running around) are people ?
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
"Faux fur is a celebration of the beauty of animals"
That's is some mighty fine trolling. What better way to celebrate the beauty of animals by simulating WEARING THEIR SKIN!
That's right up there with honouring the Jews by wearing S.S. uniforms...
Overall I gotta admit you do a wonderful job at trolling. Grade A' troll indeed!
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
How much of the $46,000 went into equipment that will last more than a year?
Why the hell is it always a friggin Honda Civic?
I swear, it's something about the wedge-shaped, shoehorn design that makes the drivers stupid, and increases the odds dramatically for jamming themselves under the back of a truck.
Really... I mean, how many have YOU seen flattened from hitting the REAR of a vehicle? Man.
No no no.
Cops is funny for one reason.
Po' dumb as shit niggers and white trash getting the shit kicked out of them by over zealous police. Sure people may think "oh this is generally uncut and all true" until they realize a cop shift is 8-12 hours [depending on locale] and a Cops episode is all of what? 30 mins?
It's funny they never show you people the cops stop and then don't arrest... hmmm...
People want to see suffering and police chases and things that go boom. But mostly it's seeing "darky" on TV getting arrested. Hence the "strange black man" defense that pretty much drives all idiot yuppy crimes.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I read the article (both actually -- sorry!). It seems that at least one of the websites that host(ed) the video has a racist leaning. And, presumably, they're trying to make a metaphor about young aspiring rap stars (or blacks in general if you prefer) to the effect that they are "trash" that needs to be cleaned from housing projects (as in be removed or killed).
Since this young man killed himself in the housing project of which he was a part (in a sense, since he lived there), according to the metaphor describe above, the housing project in question "cleaned" itself by removing (killing) this "trash".
i know plenty of poor white trash in the redneck ghetto (yeah, hard to imagine) town i live in that could use a little "self cleaning". I think trashy people transcend all races
alt.binaries.pictures.grotesque (search for "Paris Lane")
Otherwise it is really, really disturbing that people actually want to watch this.
I'm searching Kazaa for it right now. I have one other suicide movie.
Back in the 1980's a Pittsburgh area politician was caught up in a corruption scandal, his solutionm was to blow his brains out at a press conference. Someone must have either stolen the original from a tv station or had their VCR running at home when the suicide happened live. That person/s encoded the video and it's available online. Bud Dwyer's suicide is on my HDD somewhere.
I want to find this one too. Disturbing, perhaps. I want to see it anyway.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
here
So I guess that makes you a democrat (more sex less violence) as opposed to a republican (more violence less sex)... big fucking deal (no pun intedned).
I wish candidates would run on these slogans.
May we never see th
Ouch. He pulled out the big "trolling" guns, so I guess it's all over. [sigh]
I have a picture of a tiger as the background on my computer desktop - is this simulating catching a tiger and bashing it until it fits inside my cathode ray tube? Do you realize how inane and baseless your blather is?
Movies in theatres don't get censored that much for violent scenes as they do for showing nudity. Even the nudity or sex that is present in the American media is mostly connected with violence, or someone being hurt implicitly by being cheated on by their partner/spouse. The message it seems to be that killing, hurting, destroying is "o.k.", while something as natural and normal as a show of affection are "bad".
Perhaps it's not just Hollywood that acts that way. If someone on campus or in High School will start a fight everone will gather and cheer or just want to watch two dumbasses beath each other up. If I would just hug or kiss my girlfriend on campus, there will definetly be the "get a room you two" looks and comments. Even the types of drugs that are "sponsored" by the govt. say a lot. For example everyone's favorite drug, alcohol, is legal and some states even have exclusive licenses to sell it. Why isn't it the same for marijuana? Both substances can be just as dangerous. Yet alcohol intoxication often leads to aggressive and violent behavior, while marijuana has the opposite effect.
Now if someone actually read down to this point. I should emphasize that it is possibly because of this aggresivness that this country has the best economy and one the best run governments. People just have a better work ethic and are also more honest, or at least appreciate honesty more.
Well that was my 2 cents. Probably off-topic.
OK people, for the billionth time, it's not FILM , it's VIDEO ! Get it RIGHT...sheesh!
Sure, and make sure it's done right.
-I am an elective eunuch.
Well, tbh, I clicked on the link myself to watch it.
:( :(
Not that I'm some sicko, but curiousity does tend to get the best of some of us.
Here's the thing: Being a teen, you know, it's very common to *think* about suicide, when you're under stress, or to say random commments that suggest you are "tired of it all..."; but I must say; that video sent chills down my spine.
Yea, I understand that if something happens in a public place, then you really can't censor that; and yea, things like this are a side consequence of the growth of society and technology; and yea, the cop that did this is one sick bastard for a) not having a damned conscience to at least give some respect for the family (which is probably why...) b) he's a racist.
Anyways, a bit off topic there. But damn, that video will be forever embedded in my mind now whenever darker thoughts of depression float in my head or if any of my friends make hints about suicide.
I mean *damn.* That kinda changes your perspective a bit.
Try not to let life get in the way of living.
Actually, weren't two people struck by lightning during the filming of that well-received snuff film?
Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
Sure thing... right after I post a link to it so other people can have the choice to satisfy their morbid curiosity, or not.
I did quick search of ogrish.com's forum and couldn't find a mirror, but did determine that an alternate filename for this video was "suicidewash.mpg", which makes p2p search easy. So here's a direct eDonkey link:
ed2k://|file|suicidewash.mpg|2087298|C2D67655E5E1C D5931DB10037F900FD3|/
This is really tame compared to the alltime worst shockvideo I've ever seen, named "Unknown Russian Soldier". Anyway, mod this post down if you're a "decent" person who's pro-censorship when it suits you.
--
Power to the Peaceful
ed2k://|file|Paris%20Lane%20suicide%20video.wmv|13 85054|9f56eba2b1955e92786739e5ff8f4c0a| (fix that if it wraps) for those who want it.
I'm not sure it's worth bothering; on a scale of 1 to 10, I give it maybe a 3. Guy sucks off a handgun, then drops to the floor and twitches a little. Must have used a pathetically small caliber, as there's no geysering exit wound or anything. The Budd Dwyer video floating around, for all its lower picture quality, is much better - the cameraman zoomed in to catch the river of blood and brains pouring out of his nose.
First: I am not posting this link to encourage people to pursue obscene material - or to increase traffic for the website that hosted the suicide video.
e tail.asp?id=617&page=1
Second: The original video has already been taken down. As is usually the case with a news story like this, the story had already been around for a short while before it reached the major news services.
So here's the link to the site that originally posted the now infamous suicide video:
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/
Consumption Junction is not a normal porn site. They host videos like the suicide one all the time. Car wrecks, riots, people getting hurt/killed are common fare for their photos and videos sections.
Basically, this is just one of those websites that anything goes. They're primarily considered pornographic because of all the porn ads that bring them revenue. They've received a lot of attention for obscene material in the past, much the way that other sites like rotten.com have.
Think of them as rotten.com with lots of pr0n and less of a conscience. Here's what one of the consumptionjunction.com staffers had to say about the whole incident:
http://www.consumptionjunction.com/content/home_d
Fine, when your family member commits suicide, and the act gets posted all over the web, we'll remember that you said that no censorship was far more important than privacy.
But don't make decisions like that for the rest of us.
If you continue to misuse the word 'censor,' you will dilute its value.
- Censorship is not the same as filtering.
- Censorship is not the same as ranking.
- Censorship is not the same as preference.
- Censorship is not the same as choice.
- Censorship is not the same as ambivalence.
Censorship has a specific meaning. Use it carefully and it will continue have meaning. Use it whenever you dislike another's speech (or lack thereof) and you're just crying wolf.filtering is censoring a sample, not a population
ranking says only that A is more relevant or applicable than B
does preference of A really mean censorship of B?
choosing A does not mean censoring B
right to free press does not equal a right to be heard in a specific forum, including google's index
The big deal is that someone posted it on the web. Do you people have a clue how much grief she must be feeling? Her son just killed himself and then some idiot decides to cute and post it on the internet for the amusement of all.
The rabbit population is getting out of control, but we can't eat them because meat is murder. So, we must find their natural predators in order to correct this problem!
In other words it's wrong to eat rabbits, but it's okay to FEED THEM TO WILD BEASTS!
It's interesting how differently people react to seeing this kind of stuff. I used to work at LinkExchange as a banner/site checker. My job was to seek out objectionable material on sites before letting them in the network. During the year I did it, I saw a lot of nasty stuff. Gory photos from crime scenes, child pornography, rape clips, etc... in my judgement most of it was real.
:) Cheers.
I never got desensitized. Every time I came across a site that looked like it might contain such content, I'd break into a cold sweat. I'd search cautiously and if I found something I'd quickly squint my eyes and navigate to the "ban" button. And my day would thus be ruined. The image would stick in my head for hours (if not days) and make me sick to my stomach. To this day I get the same reaction to such content. I am still very sensitive to the sight of real violence. I avoid it whenever I can.
On the flip side, I have no problem at all with movie violence. I can watch loads of sensationalized gore. I can enjoy movies like Evil Dead 2 and Seven without batting an eyelash. In fact I even made a reasonably violent indie film of my own.
I am sometimes deeply affected by realistic, emotionally charged film violence, like that in Schindler's List -- though not to the degree that snuff affects me.
I have occasionally had friends email me pictures or movies to "check out! funny!" and then watched a guy have his leg broken in half. Ha ha.
I don't really understand how so many people can watch real violence/suffering and find it entertaining, even in a morbidly curious way. However, I admit that many fine people I know can watch it and not lose their humanity. I'm sure there are people here who can't understand how I can watch movie violence and maintain my humanity.
I don't have a point. Just reporting
"But don't make decisions like that for the rest of us."
That is exactly what you're doing. It is not a video of this woman who is complaining (and even if it was, its a public place under survellience, thats what the "issue" should be about). It is a video of the man who did it. He's dead, he has no say, his choice. The information exists. It can be viewed. Tough doo-doo if you don't like it.
Yeah, the band "Filter" had a song called "Hey, Man Nice Shot" that was about this incident. I had thought that they used that footage in the video for the song, but from searching now online, I don't think that's the case (anyone know?).
I'd rather be lucky than good.
You betray your intent to censor by referring to the material as filth. Google has taken deliberate steps to suppress this material, which, despite hair-splitting, meets the commonly used definition of censorship. Google should tread carefully in this sort of area, lest it find itself liable for things it fails to suppress some time in the future.
My first sentence wasn't fair--I apologize. One more question, if I may. If your ISP nullrouted a site containing this kind of material, would that or would that not constitute censorship?
Sheesh--disagree with you and make your foes list? Nice to be the first, anyway.
2) This is low-incoming housing, right? where did he get money for a gun if the taxpayers are helping him pay rent?
The guy probably didn't spend anymroe on that gun than I spend on dinner for me and the girlfriend at Bennigan's.
paintball
Exactly, that's the argument nudists have been using. Showing the skin celebrates beauty. Personally, I thought people wear faux fur because they think fur is pretty, they think fur is soft, and they think fur is warm, and above the other three, they think faux fur is cheaper than real fur.
Never confuse volume with power.
It's not such a bad thing, IMO. Better to have someone off themselves in a painless and effective manner than to leave them damaged or disfigured. Suicide isn't a good option, but I've been though times that I'd probably say "fuck it" to now, and just pull the trigger rather than deal with that crap again. IMO, people should have the information available to them, so they can make that choice if they want to.
Besides, imagine how stink would you feel if you can't even get your suicide right - gotta give a guy a break sometime.
Forget thrust, drag, lift and weight. Airplanes fly because of money.
OK, let's posit that killing animals for their fur is wrong (at least unless you need the fur). Now, you're saying that wearing fake fur is wrong because it's symbolic of the harming animals.
Fine. Now, hopefully you'll agree with me that murder, rape, assault, and other violent crimes are wrong because they hurt people. By your argument (if X is wrong, and Y is symbolic of X, Y is wrong), any literature and art which includes symbolism of these violent crimes is wrong. I assume then you'll be down at your local library checking out and burning every major work of literature since, and including, the Bible.
I don't know anyone who wears fake fur because it's symbolic of skinning an animal. I know lots of people who wear fake fur because it doesn't hurt any animals, they think it's pretty, they want to look stylish, and/or it feels nice after a couple hits of ecstasy. Given that I don't care if someone else wears a "fake person" costume, I certainly don't think the animals give a shit.
If my ISP nullrouted a site containing this kind of material? No, I would not consider that to be censorship, since their nullrouting it does not inhibit the publishing of the site's information.
If, however, the ISP hosting the page removed it, then I would consider that to be censorship. (Unless is was mirrored many other places to make it commonly available. See DeCSS for examples.)
You can qualify and limit the word 'censorship,' by saying that "Google censored the site from their index," or "My ISP censored that IP address from their customers' view." But using such a strong word in a drastically-less-than-global context is abuse of its meaning, which was my earlier point. It's purposefully inflammatory.
Censorship, if any, typically happens close to the publisher, not close to the consumer.
Yeah, the band "Filter" had a song called "Hey, Man Nice Shot" that was about this incident. I had thought that they used that footage in the video for the song, but from searching now online, I don't think that's the case (anyone know?).
I don't think I ever saw the whole video, but the song was on the Demon Knight soundtrack.
I was outside playing at the time, I was a kid and didn't watch the news then, but my mother saw it live.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
I don't understand why a global context would be a necessary component of censorship. Is not Germany's (attempted) suppression of Nazi literature censorship, though it has little effect outside her borders?
Such liability is an empty threat. You might study a little law before making such statements. One of the prerequisites for such a liability is a specific duty that google owes you, or some consideration you paid for their specific performance. Since neither exists, then your claim of potential liability is, well, without merit.
Google, a private business, offers you a free service. Use it or don't. But do not claim that they owe you specific results (suppressed or not).
No, censorship happens in either location. In the purest form censorship is when information is deliberately obscured, preferably without you ever knowing it existed.
If your ISP blocks you from seeing it, from your perspective it is as if the information does not exist. It is no different than using a sharpie in a textbook to cover over text. Certainly the information is still on those pages, you didn't unprint the books, but it is still blocked to you.
This is certainly Google self centering what they wish to show you. They, of course, have every right not to provide links to anything they don't want it, especially if they are acting in good faith that the material they are linking to is violation of copywrite. The real problem is that Google claims not to do it at all in their Terms of Service
Never confuse volume with power.
Google is indeed censoring it. As are Yahoo, Altavista and NOT metacrawler. Looks like metacrawler might be it for sensetive info.
A global context preserves the power of the word "censorship." Yes, an entire country that systematically eradicates specific literature is engaged in censorship. But no, an ISP that nullroutes a website is not effectively preventing that site's information from being published, since one can use a free proxy, web archive site, or simply a different ISP.
You can claim any definition you wish for 'censorship,' but using the word so casually (toward Google, in this case) will only dilute the power of the concept of censorship.
Are Google's actions and Germany's actions the same to you?
1.) go to the newgroup mentioned above (alt.binaries.pictures.grotesque) in this
2.) http://www.binaryboy.com/dlbbad.php?cl=nt
newsreader
3.) scroll to the paris binaries
download and let the program recompile them into a film
aand before anyone says, omg your corrupting the children/environment/wrld/society ask yourself what would the world be like if we ignored things like this?
or more likely made a drug which upon taking it made you feel ill at the sight of it. perhaps you should play some of the old ludwig van whilest watching this.. just to give you some idea of how censorship can pervert the free will of the entire human race.
*i have no idea if this is real but it seems jaring enough to be. i dont have enough bandwidth for a torrent sorry.* the guy was black? says goodbye to his girl, pulls out a 9mm and bam. hits the floor. nothing like hollywood. just sort of lies there and goes limp. really fascinating. but maybe im fucking decensitized. thanks hollywood!
titties still get me hard however. i guess i should also thank them for that.
When I try to go to goregallery or orgish it comes up with a bunch of stupid text ads. did the feds take those sites down because of this video? someone post a link to a download of the vid so i can watch it.
CJ is full of sh**.
Literally.
Every 2 video is scat.
Hey, you folks might like getting goatsed
around here but I dont find any thrill in the remote possibility that one night Im too stoned on cough syrup, I click the wrong video.
I saw that half naked picture of Roseanne Barr lounging like a geisha...I've had my share of the cold sweats.
zack
He's still mad that we won. If we didn't have guns we'd still be a colony!
Google is a private entity, and private entities have a VERY valid right to censor. In fact, their right to censor is as important as your right to speak freely. If google chooses to censor (in this case out of respect) then so be it. I commend google for censoring the page. I'm all about freedom from Government oppression, but human decency is also a good thing.
Get a life. Someone's death is not a spectical. It's a private family matter and the family has requested it be removed from the web. The mother is quite distraught about what "online" has done to her son's image.
I won't defend someone who committs suicide, but it's still their business. Once again, kudos to google.
it seems no one wants to talk about it but I think it is essential we deal with this issue. Shouldn't we have the right to decide wether or not we should live? If anything I should have a say in wether or not I want to live at all shouldn't I?
I prefer boobies and butts to entrails and gaping wounds.
I suppose it depends on your taste in sex films.
I thought I was the only person on the planet who noticed this. And was disgusted by it.
"We think this is deplorable, but we're not above using a dash of it for our ratings." Nothing like capitalizing off of the same urge that makes people slow down to look at car accidents.
I can even remember the exact moment I stopped watching the news. It was a child porn segment.
Anyone who's ever opened a porn mag (of the legal variety) knows that usually the first page of a photo shoot is a teaser page that has a goofy title of some sort, and a PG rated picture of the subject of the shoot.
The fucking show was showing the teaser pages from child porn mags on the "tune in after this commercial break" message. The title of one of the teaser pages was "Lots 'o Love".
And that, folks, is when I stopped watching the local news.
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
After reading story like this, I vowing not to read post like yours. It desensitizing us to thing like bad grammar.
The song was on the album "Short Bus". It was indeed about the Bud Dwyer suicide, but they didn't use footage in the video. Thank God.
If my answers frighten you, stop asking scary questions.
I don't expect outsiders to know this, but anyone who lives in or around Edmonton will tell you that Whyte ave is not a pretty sight after the sun goes down. There are only what... 20, 30 bars allong that strip? The place tends to get a little rough at night. Perhaps you forgot about July 1st, 2001? Also known as the Whyte ave Riot? Thats a pretty friggin big reason why people are OK with security cameras in that area. And its also why the EPS can "justify" spending the money. One more cop wouldn't have done fuck all versus 1200 drunken rioters, but a small network of security cameras will make even the dumbest people think twice about trashing the place again.
You , sir, are an asscork.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
BTW, not everybody who uses faux fur is merely trying not to use real fur. Like this crowd---try pulling that off without fake fur...
This guy's real, Jesus wasn't.
Believe what you want about who Jesus was, whether he was the son of God, or whatever, but most historians will tell you they definately believe there was a guy named Jesus who caused quite a stir among society in his time and apparently he still causes quite a stir today. How many people do you know of that are used as a point of reference when measuring time? (i.e. B.C. & A.D.).
--- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all
Citation please.
So let me get this straight. He kills himself in a lobby of a public housing building, i.e., an area accessible by the public, and this is a privacy issue? I understand and sympathize with his mother and agree that whoever let the tape out should be punished, but I believe that privacy cannot be an issue when you do something in a public area.
On a tangential note, would the family of this guy be liable if, say, an impressionable child had wandered into the area right as the event took place?
What bothers me most about this isn't the privacy concern, but rather that there is apparently an appetite out there for viewing this kind of thing.
--Rick "If it isn't broken, take it apart and find out why."
If you want to see what's REALLY on the news, check out News 14 Carolina whose TV caption system was haxored:
http://www4.ncsu.edu/~smheath/news14.html
cpeterso
Just do a few google searches you'll find plenty of arguments on both sides... people have disagreed for a long time and I don't expect to change that here. But for some interesting reading, look into the writings of Josephus and Tacitus.
--- If we knew half the things we shouldn't we'd stop wishing we knew it all
Well they got the Cameras comming out of their colective arses in the UK. I doubt very much it stops much crime. I seem to see alot of "crime video" that has the UK as it's source. But they don't have the right to not incriminate themselves either. I think that is the normal state most other places. Tell you what you all keep your "right" to not keep you mouth shut and be private in your effects, papers, person and things and I'll keep my natural right to self defense. (Yes that includes firearms.)
UH-UH! Bitchslap!!!
I prefer boobies and butts to entrails and gaping wounds.
Fucking terrorist.
Just so everyone knows, its not real, theres no way a sunroof motor would have enough tourque or have enough of an edge to sever a cats head. But as a cat hater (highly alergic and the damn things just dont like me) that was a great video. Luckily its not an american car, i'm sure the idiots at PETA would have a field day with it.
"Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
Why isn't it the same for marijuana? Both substances can be just as dangerous.
That's not even true.
Alcohol is far more dangerous.
Alcohol doesn't even grow on plants, unlike "Hemp For Victory".
Some people watch a sucide on line, some watch Jerry Springer and others. Both are exploitation of human misery.
Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.
how do you figure that given the number of wars that the states has instigated in the ;ast 20 years or so blood is the only thing that satisfies the american public...
one has to be glad that the russians have just completed the largest nuculaer war practice ever since that means that soon there will be no america and no russiaa and no more stupidity of SCO or Patiaot act or any of the other idiociy that runs that world now be prepared DOOM upon you all
HAHAHA!!!!:)))
This guy's real, Jesus wasn't.
It is a historical fact that a man named Jesus, who hailed from Nazareth lived about 2000 years ago. The only real debates are whether or not he was really the son of God and if he was really crucified.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
He was, however, struck by lightning.
That just proves that God was against the making this movie too.
.
I did a little investigation and found out that the website is consumptionjunction.com
it's on emule, search for "paris lane suicide video"
I thought I was going to go through the trouble of cleaning it up, putting it on a website. Changed my mind. It's one of the saddest things I've ever seen. Young kid. Gone. Body just goes with his decision. What else could it do?
Whatever you might be thinking now, it's worth the trouble of finding and seeing. If you've ever lost love, it just sticks with you.
Rest in Peace, Paris Lane.
What about those of us who hate our families?
Paris Lane suicide video.wmv
"I seriously hope that was a feeble attempt at humour. Otherwise it is really, really disturbing that people actually want to watch this. "
At the risk of being branded as 'unbalanced', yes, I am curious about seeing the video. Sorry, but I'm human, and I'm not going to lie about not wanting to see it just to try to convince you all that I'm operating on some higher level of morality. It's not often that one gets to see the final moments of somebody's life. Morbid? Maybe. But we'll all die some day.
"Derp de derp."
Excuse me, but an officer who doesn't realize it's immoral and wrong to post or email the video of someone's suicide?
What kind of degenerate excuse for a human being needs training to know better? Someone with such a complete lack of empathy or common sense is allowed to carry a gun and a badge?
Just when you think the American "justice" system couldn't get any worse...
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Seems to be working. darknessshot.wmv
Anyone got a link to a torrent ? Also, anyone got a link to the real unedited columine security videos ?
This includes christianity. Islam/Christianity/Judaism is responsible for most of the world's problems for past two thousand years. All three senseless beliefs need to eradicated. Clearly Islam (at the present) is much more of a threat to the modern world than christianity or judaism and should be dealt with first. Innocent people are being brainwashed and turned into cold blooded killers. I'm afraid it's an irreversible process for Muslims and the radicals needed to be killed.
I don't really want to see the video, however I am curious about its contents. What exactly happens? What weapon is used? A large knife? A sword? How many killers? How long does the process last?
Thanks for your time
I guess the troll who responded that "n***ers are trash" is also "apparently" racist.
Yes - apparently racist. Because almost the first thought that crossed my mind on seeing it was that it could have been someone making a twisted joke mocking a racist ass.
Perhaps that was my reacion because (A) I myself have a rather twisted sense of humor, and (B) a sort of optimistic hope that there are more people (and thus more likely) that someone would ridicule such a comment in that manner than people who would mean that comment genuinely.
As for the "The Self-Cleansing Housing Projects" title, concidering that it was posed that way on a racist site it was clearly meant in a racist manner. However the title itself is not inherently racist. That title could just as well be placed on a video of a white suicide in the projects. There *ARE* whites in the projects. Using that title to reffer to all "trash" in the projects may still be offensive and/or damn twisted humor, but it wouldn't be racist. It's really only racist when you read it that way - when you presume that "the projects" = black.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
But don't you see this is exactly the root of the problem? Google is making those decisions for the rest of us.
And it is censorship. It's limited of course to Google, as the site itself is still available, but it is censorship. Google is modifying its content to specifically deny the access to a particular piece of information *on Google*. This is censorship.
Americans are violent, they are violent in every way too. The reason we have a huge economy is because people know that there is someone behind us waiting to stab us in the back the minute we let our guard down. It's a survival of the fittest economy consisting of winners and losers. People work very hard to stay ahead of the game otherwise they know they are a hair breath away from unemployment and homelessness. Americans work more then any other country on the planet. They work longer hours, they take less vacations, they take less medical leave, they take less paternity leave. They pretty much live to work.
I disagree that we have the best run govt though. From where I stand it pretty much sucks and consists of people who hate each other yelling at each other. This winner take all system is lousy. Half of this country lives under a governor, senator, president or a representive that hates their guts. It sucks to be liberal in Utah or a conservative in massatuchets.
As for being more honest then anybody I don't buy that either. My experience shows me that people in ocenia are the most honest people followed by the europeans. There are some countries in asia where nobody is honest and some where almost everybody is.
evil is as evil does
A foes list can be used productively to realize other frames of perspective. At least that's how I use it as. Cool your jets man. Afterall, what is a friend if not someone to stand up for you. Thus, those "other" people are "against" you. The day we are all friends is the day we are no longer human, which, ironically, I'd favor just the same ;) (i'm not the parent btw)
Where is the privacy issue, the man is dead! Sure I would not my 3 year old watching it (if i had one) but otherwise I don't see the problem.
The guy taped himself killing himself, He wanted people to see!
Peh, alcohol is indeed a major problem, but America and the rest of the world have had such a long relationship with distilled beverages that it won't pass to quickly. Sadly abuse of any substance, from pizza to meth is part of a deep rooted psycological problem under the basic addiction to said substance.
As for in response to agressiveness, it can't be logically put forth that Americans are agressive and repressed based on our culture. Evidence has shown us in the past few months that the most violent and agressive culture comes from a particular religion that outlaws violence and carnal behavior.
I think the headline released with this video is distasteful, the person who wrote that should be sued for damages or put to community service. Unfortunately this has turned into a racial slur as well, objectivity is the key.
WITHIN this situation we can see that the young man wanted to be a rapper. EVEN more interesting; the fact that he shot himself because of falling short of his goal shows us that this rap culture is short sighted, failing, and pointless. Every person that I have known, heard of, or talked to in this business has an agrandized view of themselves, often is an egocentric person who does not care for anyone other than theirselves, and 90 percent of the time they are violent. Clearly it is the subculture here that lead to his death, Not American Culture, not violence in movies, not the legalization of alcohol and the absence of legal marijuana, and certainly not repression of graphic sexual conotation.
The only effect is that these crimes are now committed in another district. So if you wouldn't put up any cameras at all, it would have the same effect on criminality rate.
About three months back a report in the UK came out saying that cameras had not reduced the level of violent crime in city centres. But they had reduced the serverity of injuries incurred, becuase the emergency services could be alerted to trouble and its whereabouts quicker.
Cameras? I guess it depends on which end of the boot you are on.
"don't make decisions like that for the rest of us."
he's not. he's expressing his view; that's allowed. your misrepresentation of his post is disingenuous at best.
if i'm a grammar nazi, you're an illiteracy nazi.
The vast majority of people who live in housing projects in big cities are black. I'm not presuming anything. I've been to housing projects. I drive past one every day.
Why is it so difficult to acknowledge the obvious?
Human language isn't like computer language. You don't have to exhaust all possibile meanings to reach a conclusion. To say that a black man committing suicide is an example of a "self-cleansing housing project" is racist, plain and simple.
"What if it had been a white person?" is a meaningless question. It wasn't a white person. It was a black person. And his race is relevant. Let's try not to pretend otherwise.
80% of suicides are committed by males. Read The Myth of Male Power, it'll change your perception of gender roles in society forever. http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0425 181448/qid=1081503958/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-665175 2-5707229?v=glance&s=books
(Sorry for the non-html link. I'm a nerd-in-training)
-Copyright law #69:Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain,copyrights get extended by 25 years.
> But don't you see this is exactly the root of the problem? Google is making those
> decisions for the rest of us.
> And it is censorship. It's limited of course to Google, as the site itself is still available,
> but it is censorship. Google is modifying its content to specifically deny the access to a
> particular piece of information *on Google*. This is censorship.
No, it's not. Censorship is when the government stops you. If you want to get this file and host it yourself then no-one will stop you. What Google decides to store in their database is entirely up to them - who are you to tell them what to you? If you don't like it, why not start your own search engine?
Getting murdered isn't a heroic act. He got shafted, and any tokenism you want to heap on him, like calling him a hero, isn't going make his shafting lesser so.
You've got it backward, buck-o. When you apply censorship, you're making the decision for "the rest of us".
Introducing: The Self-Cleansing Housing Projects. Wow, it distracts the user or is shooting a head something that you call CLEAN?
NO FAT CHICKS.
aren't known to really have a lot of strong preferences about what other people are watching or how they might be portayed in what those people are watching.
For those that cared for him it's a bit of an unnecessary kick in the nuts. But no one said the world was all milk and honey everywhere you looked.
Not even remotely true.
Josephus (at least the part where he mentions Jesus) is a fake - surprised you didn't know that. Tacitus is only know to have written what early Christians belived to have happened.
Case not proven, m'lud. For a man who was supposed to be the most famous man alive in the area, no-one there at the time seems to have heard of him.
-- And when Justice is gone, there is always... Force. --Laurie Anderson, "Oh Superman"
That's hardly the same thing. You can take a picture of wildlife with only mildly disturbing it. You don't have to slaughter the Lion to get it to pose [and if you did then ya I'd have a problem with it].
So again, I say, mighty fine trolling. You're taking a well constructed argument and pulling it out of context with irrelevant hyperbole.
Now I'm not some PETA zealot. I eat meat but that's because that's the way things are. I don't go around killing other animals just for social status... if it's cold out I wear my parka [military issue I got at a surplus store 6 years ago] which is warmer than fur anyways...
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
> It seems that at least one of the websites that host(ed) the video has a racist leaning.
The video first appeared on Consumption Junction. You can read editor Paul's writeup about the incident here. CJ isn't even remotely "work-safe", so exercise discretion if you work somewhere that cares about these things.
I've been watching CJ for years now. They're a lot of things - offensive, distasteful, sick - but they're not really "racist".
Following your logic, the domain registrars could remove their endorsement as well. Major ISPs could decide that it isn't worth their while to route packets to your servers, or acknowledge that you occupy the IP address that you think you have.
I suppose the difference is private industry assistance vs. government action. It's sort of unrealistic for you to expect to publish anything if you have no help from anyone in the private sector. However, you could argue that if THAT many people (read: everyone) doesn't want it published, who's your audience?
I guess your definition of censorship requires that some kind of enforcement agent prevents you from acting in an otherwise law-abiding way in order to prevent the publication.
I mostly agree with that, but it would be rather easy to convince a few major ISPs to prevent you from using them to publish (if the content is of a certain nature), which pretty much ruins any chance of online publication. I don't know whether it's "censorship" or not, but it certainly prevents someone from reading your publication even if they wanted to.
Social scientists are inspired by theories; scientists are humbled by facts.
With all due respect to good cops out there, you don't reaslly need to be a scholar or a moral saint to bedcome a cop. All it takes is a few college courses and some basic testing.
It's not historical fact. They're not even sure of the dates, some research into the position of stars and other evidence showed it was more likely that Jesus, if he was ever real, was born in spring/early summer.
Our calender is based around a best guess of the birth date of someone who may or may not have existed and who claimed to be the son of God. If we're going to go by that, why not have a new Jim Jones calender, at least we knew when the guy was born and when he died.
Considering we might see three Japanese uploaded this weekend.
Um, first off I'm all for burning the bible [and all other religious books] for a different reason.
As for books which include symbolism for rape, murder, etc... they should be too. And to some extent they are frowned upon. Don't believe me? Get a Snuff magazine and read it on the bus to work... see how many odd looks you get.
Note that discussing and symbolism are different things. A book about why you should kill all Jews is [in my mind] worse than a book in which a Jew happens to die. Not that I'm saying violence is good in any fashion [specially for the purposes of profit].
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
did anyone see the japanese lady who is the hostage in iraq. I thought that was really quite disturbing video. The sheer terror in her voice as she screamed while the put a knife to her thorat.
I found it really distrubing. But in another way it also gives you some idea of who and what we are dealing with and why the response is necessary.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
They are both attempting to prevent your access of the material. As is the ISP's nullrouting....
The darkness... controls the music. The music... controls the soul.
If my ISP nullrouted a site containing this kind of material? No, I would not consider that to be censorship, since their nullrouting it does not inhibit the publishing of the site's information.
So then, is China's filtering of internet content not censorship?
Your credit card information wants to be free.
it's been online for about a week at http://www.entensity.net/ , As a music video no less
Fine, when your
Logic error before `family';
ad hominem;
appeal to emotion;
hasty generalization.
Exiting
It is because you have no sense of humour.
There is a major difference between 'censorship' and 'government censorship'. From reading many of the comments, it seems that that is what many people seem to be forgetting. If google did indeed delete the site from their index, then it is indeed censorship. It is not as extreme as the governent sending in armed troops and shutting down the servers that the website is hosted on, but it is censorship.
This isn't that bad though, becuase if I do conclusivly find that google did actually delete the page from their index, then I will be more likely to use a different search engine, and so will other peoeple. So, it is not in google's best interest to delete the index.
Censorship is anytime that a major host of information denies access to that information. If Google did delete the index, then Google isn't actually denying access to the website, but they are denying access to the link to the site, which is censorship. It's just not as bad as government censorship.
Oh this is cherry. "When my family member commits suicide". Interesting, are you GOD? You can predict that my family member is going to commit suicide? Who is it please? Since you are an idiot...answer this..."What are the lottery numbers for the next drawing?". "and the act gets posted all over the web". Assumption makes an ass of u and me, however it is more you. If this idiot wanted privacy, blowing your head off in a public place probably wasn't a good idea. Thanks for providing me a good laugh this morning.
Someone with such a complete lack of empathy or common sense is allowed to carry a gun and a badge?
I thought those were the only people allowed to carry a gun and badge. You need a certain mentality to become a police officer, and it obviously includes the will to stamp on another human being and say "oops, your fault."
There are nice cops out there, I'm sure, but they are few and far between. Do you know why? It is because the raison d'etre for the police force these days is not investigating crimes. It is not protecting the innocent. It is not being "your friendly neighborhood officer." It is giving out speeding tickets.
I've had my house and car broken into several times before. Called the cops each time. In all but one case, there were *obvious* traces of entry. We're talking fingerprints on glass windows so sharp and clear that I could have sampled them myself with a piece of scotch tape. Guess how the cops responded?
The first time it was quite a surprise - after an hour I call the police station back to ask where the forensics unit they said they were sending out is. The response (I got a different operator than last time, apparently one more willing to tell the reality of the situation) "Oh, we don't do that." My response of course was, "well what do you do?" Upon which she replied "There'll be someone down in another hour or so to take a statement." "Huh. Will there be any kind of follow up?" "No, not really." "Great, thanks. Don't bother - I've got business to take care of."
I wish I'd been as sharp as that guy in Texas who called back after twenty minutes and said "Yeah, don't worry about sending anybody over - the guy was still hiding in my house so I shot him." Four squad cars were there in seconds. Guess what they were doing that was so important that they couldn't come earlier to insure the safety of a citizen? The article I read didn't say, but I'm guessing speeding ticket duty.
The police in the US are a joke. Unless you're going 75 miles per hour in a 65 zone, of course.
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
I understand that you wish to preserve the power of the word "censorship." Others with to preserve the power of words like "pirate" and "hacker," to no avail. Once the majority changes their definition of the word, the definition has changed. Unfortunate, but true.
In any case, what Google is doing is bad--even if one agrees that no one should see this clip or discussion about it, it harms their reputation as an impartial indexer of content. Their actions in Germany smack of excessive coziness with government, which to me would make them near a censor by your own definition. I'm sure the folks at Google feel like they're not engaging in anything like censorship--they would argue that they don't want their service used to find such dreck. But once they've given up their impartiality, they can't be trusted.
Since the Zoo system is primarily meant to be used to hide comments, I thought I had been posting (what I thought of as) thoughtful replies and was a bit irritated that they might never have been seen.
Using such emotionally drenched rhetoric is never a good way to win an argument. Consider a man whose wife has just been killed in a car wreck, and now wants to ban the use of all automobiles - he could very easily make the same sort of statement. If we are going to discuss things here, let us do it in a manner that is free of such emotional appeals which do little to further the spread of knowledge.
My blog
Care to back this up? I wouldn't be willing to say more than any country, but I do know that when stats come out regarding number of hours worked, vacation time, or paternity leave, the US is always the hardest working. I'm saying this as a Canadian, by the way, where when I worked with American counterparts I was always amazed that they would be in the office at 7am their time, leaving a 6pm their time. For things like maternity leave up here it's a year, and down there I think it's like 6 weeks, with many mothers not even taking that miniscule amount.
I swear that porn might really pose more of a problem at work than the most extreme violence. Because its more likely that their are guidelines, probably very specific ones, in company policies. And I think employers are more likely to be hit with lawsuits (as well as productivity problems) with sex. God Bless America.
So would you, or would you not have a problem with my deerskin coat?
--Demonspawn
"Caviezel was uninjured"
dosen't sound like a smiting to me.
given the facts you're 100% wrong.
Umm...except that the dead guy WAS black, and the 2nd comment on the site was "More negros should do this...."
Seriously though, I think the general American attitude to sex is as confused as the Catholic church is, and people tend not to differentiate between pornography and "shows of affection"
Also, I guess violence and "exploding things" have appealed to kids throughout the ages, and as long as it's presented in a fantasy context I expect it does more good than harm.
I'm from the UK btw
If you don't want this kind of content on your surveillance cameras, integrate them with ClearPlay.
I have no mod points, so I'll just say: yep yep My former husband was in law enforcement. I've socialized with cops, deputies, and probation officers. I can't say that I miss a single one since my divorce. One that I knew used to get high with a certain friend. After he became a police officer, he set that friend up for a drug sting. Nice folks eh? I actually could go on and on with the stories. But I won't.
Then there are no 'privacy issues'. Public areas are public domain.. thats why its called 'public'.
Perhaps its tasteless, and not respectable.. but legal.
Yes, i admit i didnt go read the link, i have no desire to get a bunch of porno popups or watch a guy blow his head off. So i can only go on what the summary is saying.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Yes, you read correctly, $46000. That's roughly the cost of putting a cop on the streets for half a year.
;)
I first read that and though "$46000 for only half of the year? I'm in the wrong line of work." And then I realized that this was in Canada... That's what? About $15,000 USD?
(This is a joke, so laugh a little mods.)
If Murphy's Law can go wrong, it will.
> Umm...except that the dead guy WAS black
Which is impossible to tell from the video title.
> and the 2nd comment on the site was "More negros should do this...."
Then the poster is a racist asshole, but that doesn't have anything to do with the title of the video.
My point, again, is that if you hear "housing project" and immediately think "black" then the problem is in *your* head. And don't think I'm being all holier-than-thou about it. When *I* hear "housing project" I immediately think "black," it's just that I have the balls to stand up and admit that it's wrong.
You're the racist if you equate "Housing Projects" with African Americans! Most folks in the U.S. lucky enough to live in cheap section-8 housing are white.
Best Buy can have you arrested
...and yet rotten.com is still one of the most popular sites. come on people...maybe this article really is only drawing the horrified to comment, and the jaded are just shrugging and looking for the video, but this "sickness" is pervasive, and nothing you can do can change it. anyway - information wants to be free, doesn't it?
on a tanget, does anybody know why the telepone-pole impalement got taken down? that was one of the more shiver-inspiring images they've had lately.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
Can anyone tell me what codec I need to play this file? I tried it with Windows Media Player and it woudln't work and then I tried it with the DIVX player and that didn't work either... any suggestions? Thanx.
How is it that one careless match can start a forest fire, but it takes a whole box to start a campfire?
On a practical level, lots of people are going to want to wear animal skins. (most) people WANT to bite into that fat juicy steak. I'm looking forward to the day when the vegetable-based faux meat is indistinguishable from the real thing- I think even most hardcore carnivores would agree that all things being equal, wouldn't it be a better thing if all those steakhouses really weren't responsible for animal deaths?
It's the same thing with faux fur. I'm no animal suffragist, but, Jesus, man, it's a step in the right direction. Lay off the faux fur & "pleather" buyers.
This sentence's period was stolen This sentence knows who took it:
"Hookers and drug dealers in the new GTA? Will Rockstar Games go to any length to get attention from sex-starved teenagers? "
This is of course exactly the kind of sensationalistic journalism that our modern news outlets love to put out.
The thing that I like about this one though is the implications in the second sentence, especially when coupled with footage of girls in the mall. Sure this implies that Rockstar are evil for trying to attract teens. It also implies that there's something wrong with the teens, that their lives are so empty that they are attracted to these games, especially by using footage of teens hanging in a mall - a totally worthless activity if ever there was one.
The implied solution is fairly clear to me - teens should be having sex. It would get them out of the malls, and they wouldn't be playing evil games like GTA.
The news outlets would of course love this.
OK, I admit it, I'm stirring shit here.
"The big deal isn't so much that someone killed themselves and has it on tape, this happens all the time."
What does? People killing themselves? Or it being taped? Or the "tape" being released on the internet?
"It's the fact that police officers recieve no privacy training..."
Is that a fact? No police officers ever receive any "privacy training"? Because I really don't know. But rather than state my opinion as a hard fact, I'll respond like this:
I would imagine that most police officers receive some sort of instruction in civil rights, such as the right to reasonable privacy, as a part of their training. It only makes sense.
In addition, based on the article (you did read the article, didn't you?), an additional privacy issue here seems to be the idea that having so many surveillance cameras in these buildings may be an invasion of privacy. But this suicide apparently happened in the lobby; I think a camera there is essentially no different from a camera in the lobby of a bank, post office, grocery store, etc. If there were cameras in individual's apartments, or in hallways or other "public" areas such that they filmed into apartments (with open doors or window coverings), that would certainly be questionable.
Alcohol doesn't even grow on plants
Uh, not directly I guess. There is a refining process, but the basic ingedients come from plants.
it's not aout whether the cop should be more sensitive about what he puts on the web, it's that he shouldn't be allowed to put anything from a surveilance camera on the web, or he should be able to put all of it on the web. Either the unfortunate Mr. Lane committed suicide in public, or he didn't.
Let's get the whole issue out in the open, public places belong to the public, not the government, and private places belong to their owners. If the place is not public, there should be no public surveilance. If the place is public and there is public surveilance, ALL of it should be published. There should be equal access for all people to all public information. I don't need police censors dolling out the nasty bits with offensive comentary, I need all of it. I paid for it, it's my space, I own it and the technology exists to index and share it.
Video capture equipment is already pervasive and it's going to get better. Eventually, you will be able to carry hours of recording capability in a shirt button. You should use such devices. Private surveilance is the only counter to the abuse of public surveilance and the abuse of that information by those who control it. If the same information becomes available privately, the government will be ashamed of not making the public records available. "Why did we spend all of this public money?" people will be able to ask when public surveilance systems are made redundant. Existing slander and publication laws are sufficient to prevent abuse of private footage, such as cads will make of their aquantances' sex lives.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
I would simply because cheaper more effective coat material exists. Which may mean nothing to you, but when you live in a country that knows that -40C is you want a warm coat...If you really want to live like a deer then take the fat insulation and wear that instead ;-)
As for my whole point. It's not so much as the act as the people. E.g. "it's ok to wear fake fur because it's not real" but they don't realize that it still symbolizes skinning animals to wear their fur. I hate people who can't see past their nose to realize help stupid they are.
In short I hate people devoid of critical thinking.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
The camera also prevented an unknown number of crimes in that area...
Which caused an unknown increase in the number of crimes in a different area....
If someone on campus or in High School will start a fight everone will gather and cheer or just want to watch two dumbasses beath each other up. If I would just hug or kiss my girlfriend on campus, there will definetly be the "get a room you two" looks and comments.
On the one hand, it might be nice to have "get a room you two" comments for fights, but I think I'd be a little uncomfortable being watched and cheered on by a ring of people when kissing my girlfriend.
On a more serious note, this mentality is one reason that I'm worried about the rise of a fascist state in America. A psychologist examining the lives of fascist leaders in the wake of WWII came up with a disturbing common trend in most of their lives -- a strong, disapproving father figure combined with a strong repression of sexuality and encouragement of violence with a projection of responsibility for immorality on an outside, hated group. They called it the "F factor," and I'm sadly disappointed that I can't find an web link about it after reading mention of it in "The Lucifer Principle," by Howard Bloom. Does that profile sound familiar for any large, politically active group in America right now?
It's a shame that "Godwin's Law" (which has been in existence long before Godwin uttered it and even long before the Internet was born) has silenced all open debate and reflection upon the rise of fascism in Europe. Most Americans honestly have no idea how Germany went from a democracy to a fanatical dictatorship after WWI. Few are even really aware of the fact that it was ever a democracy. Italian and Spanish history at the time is a complete mystery, and no one is really taught what happened in between monarchy and military dictatorship. As such, America is completely unprepared for and unaware of the changes taking place within itself right now, and the most ignorant of history are the ones leading the charge right now. If America's economy ever collapses like that of post-WWI Germany, I'd start worrying, and I'd start reading on 1930s Germany and Italy if I were you. It's really terrifying to see much of the same rhetoric used in political rallies today.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
For me, it's just to expand my experiences. It's not like I have a collection of suicide videos. But when this makes national news, I'd like to say to myself... yea, I saw that, and know what the fuss is about.
I don't have a collection of pictures of women having sex with a horse, but I have looked. And cows, ponies, and dogs. Lots of dogs.
We've all seen the goatse.x picture. And tubgirl.
I don't visit stileproject site every day, but 1 or 2 times a year, I will check the place out. Because of that, I know what a half-eaten man inside an alligator looks like. sigh.
I'd have to say that the most disturbing scene I've ever seen from the internet was a video of a man being stoned to death. "The Passion" had nothing on this. I felt like I had reached the bottom gutter of the human soul, and don't feel like coming back. I'm sure this suicide video pales in comparison.
Why are there only 19 people folding@home for slashdot?
impossible to tell from the video title
But trivial to tell from the video itself, which was prominently displayed directly below the title. You are the one who said to look at the facts. When someone posts a web page with that title about a black guy shooting himself, the facts point in a damn clear direction.
As I pointed out in another post, I thought we were talking about the name of the video and not the page it was hosted on. Given the context of the webpage (which I've never seen), my argument goes right out the window. Mea culpa.
You HBT YHL HAND
Faux fur is a celebration of the beauty of animals, and given that no animals were harmed in its production, I don't really see an issue with it.
Faux news is a celebration of the beauty of the news, and given that no reporters were harmed in its production, I don't really see an issue with it.
What?
You are inferring that the only two crimes were the ones that were taped. That's not even close to what was said. Nice twisting though.
"Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
It's not historical fact.
There are varied and independent sources for the existence of a man with that name, living in that part of the world and at that time in the past. Even the name of his "father" is known.
There is tangible evidence of this.
They're not even sure of the dates, some research into the position of stars and other evidence showed it was more likely that Jesus, if he was ever real, was born in spring/early summer.
The Bible itself hits that Jesus was born either in the spring or the late summer. The shepherds were in the fields with their flocks at night according to the story, that happens two times a year there, in the spring when the sheep are mating and in late summer when it's too hot to graze them during the day.
Our calender is based around a best guess of the birth date of someone who may or may not have existed and who claimed to be the son of God.
Jesus never directly claimed to be the begotten son of God. He only referred to God as his "father", according to Judeo/Christian/Islamic theology he's all of our "father".
I'm not a Christian either, but you should at least understand their theology before going around trying to discredit it.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
That's because god is an American. That was a warning shot. - re: Yakov Smirnoff
What?
There is a refining process, but the basic ingedients come from plants.
Certainly. In fact, in some cases alcohol actually does grow on plants. I've seen birds eating pyracantha berries and then slam into sliding glass doors as the berries had fermented.
In the commonly consumed forms though, alcohol has undergone a refining process whereas pot hasn't.
Are you a lawyer? Law student at least? It is quite possible that there is law that would show such duty exists (copyright, trademark, obscenity, DMCA, contributory infringement), and that the fact that they have in the past suppressed results at the behest of a corporation, government, or what not would put them in a position of liability. Claiming that all the complex issues that could intertwine to provide a convincing theory of liability could not possibly exist is naive. If you're not a lawyer, your exhortation to "study a little law" is, well, without merit.
Even the nudity or sex that is present in the American media is mostly connected with violence, or someone being hurt implicitly by being cheated on by their partner/spouse.
So in Europe cheating spouses aren't hurtful? I remember when a certain French primeminister's wife and children stood beside his mistress and illegitimate children.
Both substances can be just as dangerous. Yet alcohol intoxication often leads to aggressive and violent behavior, while marijuana has the opposite effect.
People often assume that hemp is illegal because of its relationship to marijuana, the inverse is the case marijuana is illegal because of its relationship to hemp. No one really cared about marijuana until hemp products starting cutting into the profits of Hearst and Du Pont.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
College courses? Surely you must be joking. In most states you just need to be 21 w/ a clean record, and pass a Police Academy.
Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
In short I hate people devoid of critical thinking.
What's with all of the self-hatred?
Seriously, though, your superficial morality is pretty unsteady. Fake fur looks nice to those who are into that sort of thing, feels nice, and required no animal suffering -- where is the problem? If you really think that people like fur because it "symbolizes skinning animals" then you are unbelievably deluded.
Hahahahaha, I guess this loser 'aspiring' rapper thought he would follow in 2 Pac and Biggie's footsteps...nothing gets you street cred like getting gunned down. But he couldn't find anybody to put him out of his misery so he did it himself.
Damn I can't wait to see this video.
...but the talking head he claims to have decended from isn't.
It is disturbing, but not in the way I expected. The victim is just some typical black youth living in the projects who always carries a weapon with him. Killing himself was just an impulsive reaction. Most killings are committed on impulse. If he hadn't just happenned to have a loaded handgun in his pocket, he would have gotten over the rejection in a day or so. I'm sure there are hundreds of similar killings all the time, this one just happenned to get filmed. I understand Google's decision to hide the link. I know the link and I don't think I'll give it out either.
Encoding in Windows Media format should definitely be a crime.
It was Courtney after a Hole concert backstage party. Difficult to tell, I know.
In eight sentences you've advocated burning all religious books and anything with symbolic violence, utterly misused the term "symbolism" to refer to advocacy (the latter being orthogonal to your original argument anyway; while fake fur may symbolize real fur it certainly isn't advocating it), and, tellingly, invoked the Holocaust.
I invoke Godwin's Law (look it up), ergo you lose. Before you try trolling again, you should really learn some finesse. Back in the glory days you would have been laughed off of Usenet.
Nazi! There you're right....
/. outright weird arguments are permitted here. Usenet [at least the groups I talk in] are for serious discussion only so things like idiot yuppies wouldn't come up.
Um... this is
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
How is this different from several newspapers showing burned bodies in Iraq? I think what some people miss is that seeing REAL death (ie not in GTA) will do the OPPOSITE of desensitizing people from violence. Unless you really are a sick fuck...
What does? People killing themselves? Or it being taped? Or the "tape" being released on the internet?
People killing themselves and taping it. exactly what i said. Did i SAY "The 'tape' being released on the internet"? No. Read my comment before you try to attack it.
Is that a fact? No police officers ever receive any "privacy training"
No, it most certainly is not. It's a good thing I didn't say that. What I said was in the context of this case.
Please don't try to put words in my mouth and make me sound like a moron for saying things I never said. Thanks. In addition, you are a fuckjob.
Um, that's not freedom, fucktard.
>On a more serious note, this mentality is one reason that I'm worried about the rise of a fascist state in America. A psychologist examining the lives of fascist leaders in the wake of WWII came up with a disturbing common trend in most of their lives -- a strong, disapproving father figure combined with a strong repression of sexuality and encouragement of violence with a projection of responsibility for immorality on an outside, hated group.
;-)
I dunno about his father, but this trial lawyer, disguised as a human being, has sacrificed his personal life in a crusade against "evil corporations" he blames for everything having fanatical zealot followers and robs with his trial lawyer buddies.
Or you were talking about ultra-right only?
If you find and read "On Aggression" by Konrad Z. Lorenz, you'll find that a "group instincts" are lying in the foundation of any "us versus them" mentality even if it is just a "civil war" (as people in Oregon call matches between Ducks and Beavers - the football teams belonging to two Oregon universities).
Tigers respect lions, elephants and hippos. Maggots respect no one. (C) S. Dovlatov
Courtesy of the fellas over at Bangedup:
e la sttime.wmv
http://www.bangedup.com/Current/SayGoodbyeForth
> This guy's real, Jesus wasn't.
... or a trouble maker with a vendetta against the Romans, or perhaps merely a philanthropist who was in the wrong place at the wrong time ... he definitely existed.
He was. Whether you believe he was the Son of God, or "merely" a prophet, or just a carpenter with a cool party trick for turning water into wine
Tacitus, Suetonius (Roman historians) and Pliny the Younger (Roman govenor) all make references to a person named Jesus, and the upheavel he caused.
-P.
Shame though that Godwin's Law is just a commentary on the misuse of specific events in history as arguments, and not a rule of any kind.
It would preclude perfectly valid use of historical references even while it blocks trite misuse. Much like invoking Godwin's Law as you just did is trite.
Finesse, indeed. There are no trump cards in argument or debate.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
You've got some valid critiques, but I'd like to play devil's advocate.
I have noticed that being a police officer is alot like being a sys admin. Our users constantly wonder why we don't cater to them more, while we constantly wonder why our users don't take more interest/responsibilty for knowing how to use their systems.
Please place at least half of the blame where it truly deserves to be - in the useless legislation that turns our police officers into glorified baby-sitters (Wear your seatbelt! Click it or Ticket!) on top of expecting them to risk their lives 24/7 for middling pay and bad press.
If you truly want your police officers to improve, then vote against useless legislation that criminalizes victimless crimes (drug possession, "copyright" infrigement, not wearing a seatbelt, etc.) and then maybe our police officers will have time to work against real criminals (murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc.)
Just my $.02
blue
Fuck you tree hugging hippie. I have eyes in the front of my head. I eat sweet meat. Yep I eat the carcasses of dead animals. Shove your vegetable steak up your anus.
On a broader scale that's not true, study a little economics. Say this was a business district, reduced crime helps make the businesses more profitable and productive. This generates 'excess wealth' which is taxed. This in turn is used to fight crime not just in that area but everywhere within the economic/governmental sector. Criminals choose the easiest targets, i.e. with the lowest risk and greatest reward. These areas normally (re-actively) are 'next' to have investments made in them by the locals in those areas to lower crime (i.e. increase the risk). This chases criminals to the next *lower reward* area with similar risk. Thus crime fighting resource investments tend to be made first where they have the most impact, and criminals are eventually statistically driven into lower and lower reward areas to perform crime (i.e. poorer and poorer areas). Since the reward to the criminals is lower, it starts becoming less profitable to be a criminal, and an increasing number of criminals (statistically) tend to start looking for "honest work" where the rewards may be similar but the risk is lower. As long as productive economic sub-sectors of the economy remain profitable enough to effectively fight crime in their areas, crime slowly tends toward a statistical minimum, where eventually only the people who really are destined to be criminals will be criminals.
The converse applies too. If there are not enough excess resources in a productive business area to effectively fight crime in that area, the criminals remain. This drives up the costs of doing business in an area, and also chases potential clients out of such areas that they perceive as "bad". A downward spiral occurs. Businesses start moving out of an area, customers hear an area is "going bad", more and more businesses pack up, and the criminals 'take over'. With no more businesses in an area, there are no excess resources that can be used to fight the crime. Thus an area often remains "trapped" in a bad state indefinitely (or until someone decides to fund a clean-up).
Now, sure, the businesses that move out of one area move into another area which will be profitable. However, this "business area" is really a microcosm of an entire economy (which may be a country, a state, or municipal area), which has an average amount of "excess resources" that it can devote to fighting crime; this "average amount" is a function of the economic output (productivity) of the region. If an entire region is too poor to effectively fight crime (on average), then criminals are attracted to the entire region in general (because risk/reward looks better). And with (a) more criminals to fight and (b) less money to fight those criminals, the same downward spiral occurs, with the same extreme difficulty to ever break out of it. With criminals moving in, businesses move out (to other states/countries etc).
The above is called a "poverty trap". Basically the problem is that e.g. a country that is *already* poor may never be able to break up out of it due to the 'poverty trap'. This is not speculative conjecture, these are studied and modelled economic principles.
There is effectively "line" above which, if your economic output is higher than the line, an upward spiral occurs - enough excess resources are generated to fight crime, crime moves away to easier targets, and business becomes even more profitable. If your economic output is below the line, the downward spiral occurs. South Africa is an interesting case study of a potential poverty trap, where the economy is more or less "straddling the line" at the moment and could go either way, in my opinion.
And criminals do move about between countries, A LOT. Again, see South Africa as a case study, where organized crime syndicates from all over (e.g. Nigeria, Russia, Zimbabwe, USA, China etc) are all moving in. A large number of 'petty criminals' are also poor illegal immigrants from places like Zimbabwe.
Not everyone is either born a criminal or not. It's more a
A bit more on crime induced poverty traps here: http://www.sv.ntnu.no/iso/Ragnar.Torvik/crime.pdf.
A quote from the conclusion:
"the social forces that produce the hump under some circumstances can lead to a poverty trap long before full industrialization is reached. Depending on the stage of development capital accumulation may have negative or positive externalities via criminal behavior. At a low stage of development capital accumulation by one producer generates increasing crime that reduces the profitability of all producers. At a higher stage of development, when labor has become more scarce, capital accumulation (and increased employment) of one producer reduces crime, enhancing the profitability of all producers. It is the changing sign of the externality at different stages of development that can generate a poverty trap."
Hundreds of car crash films? Did you really mean that? I can't believe that there are even a hundred car crash films...