CCW holder killed reaching for ID.

[William Parcher]

I think you missed my point entirely, which is that violence is, for some reason, entirely acceptable while nudity is a threat to the bedrock of our morality. It's a dichotomy that has been noted for a long time. Want to test it? Upload some porn to Youtube.

No, I did understand your point. But you have to understand my point. YouTube allows some videos showing killing but not all. YouTube allows the video of this man being killed by the police, but they don't allow the video of the Muslims being killed at the Christchurch mosque.

I'm not making a complaint about YouTube - I'm just making an observation.

 

[William Parcher]

I see this as similar to Liveleak. Sure, anything is allowed, but is primarily known as a site to watch violent videos, mostly because it is one of the few sites that allow such content. Whatever mission it may have had, it is best known for its of videos of grisly deaths. Allowing such content often becomes a feedback loop where the site ceases to be a general use site and becomes banned-content only type clearinghouse.

This is not strictly true. LiveLeak hosted the Christchurch video for about 48 hours and then removed it.

Putting that aside, the most violent and grisly gore videos will not be seen on LiveLeak. Those would only be on other sites which are far "worse" than LiveLeak. Those other sites still host the Christchurch video.

 

[bignickel]

Watching that video again makes me really believe that Castile's mindset was

Considering your posting history, I find it doubtful that you know any minority's mindset.

If I were to venture a guess as to what Castile's "mindset" was, it probably be along the lines of "Ok, getting my ID like I was asked, now he's telling me not to get my gun (which I mentioned a few seconds ago). I've told him I'm not getting the gun; In any case, since one of us is a trained professional, I'm sure there won't be any prob..."

Evidently, the jury spent 5 hours debating "culpable negligence", which seems to be why they acquitted; defined as "(law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences)". Makes me wonder who they were applying "culpable negligence": surely the trained professional? It's a wonder the kid and other passenger didn't get shot too.

I do wonder if instead of a police officer, it was a cab driver who killed Castile in the exact same scenario except for Castile being in the back, cab driver in front, and Castile reaching for his wallet. Since, you know: cab drivers are actually in the top 10 most dangerous occupations in this country, instead of say, police officers. Any takers on a bet for the cab driver getting acquitted?