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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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?
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.
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.
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
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
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
"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.
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!"
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.
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.
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
Yesterday I took a piece of paper from District Court to the Police station, on it was an order to erase my record of arrest because I hadn't committed a crime. I asked for a reciept or confirmation that they had erased my records and they said there was 'no procedure for that, trust us'. Now I don't have proof that my employer won't find this particularly offensive record when they do occasional background checks (I work at a school).
Privacy of suspects and citizens surely is part of the police duties, if they can provide records they should be obligated to properly handle them.
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
She really doesn't understand the Internet. If she manages to get this off the Internet, it will be the first time anything controversial *ever* gets moved off the Internet.
I'll bet this movie has already been published to a Freesite, as a matter of fact, as soon as someone heard that someone was trying to censor the movie.
Ultimately, I can understand the mother being upset, but OTOH, if I want to run naked down Main Street carrying a squirrel and someone gets me on tape, I'm going to have to put up with video of it being out there.
This guy chose to shoot himself in public. I don't think shooting onesself is a good idea; I think that shooting onesself in a public place is an even worse idea if one wants to have a private suicide. If someone had been standing there with a camcorder, and the police hadn't been involved, there wouldn't even be an issue -- plenty of hand-camcorderized deaths have been taped, and even sold to TV stations (though not, to the best of my knowledge, suicides -- just accidental deaths).
I can understand complaints about the misuse of military/police surveillance, but I don't think that someone doing something in public really has a right to expect that images of that action not be reproduced. We have laws to protect against paparazzi and similar in private, but in public everything is fair game.
May we never see th
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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."
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".
You've got it backward, buck-o. When you apply censorship, you're making the decision for "the rest of us".
You know what? It *was* funny. I laughed.
You, I, him will all die. That's 100% guaranteed. Whether it's hit by a bus, eaten by cancer, or jumping off a bridge we're *all* dead men walking.
Many people deal with that by joking about it. What you think is disturbing and inappropriate, I think is a handy counter for being one of the few, if only animals aware of our own mortality.
Remember kids, it's all fun and games until someone commits wholesale galactic genocide.