That video doesn't seem to load. Does it work for anyone? I've tried in multiple browsers.
There is a "410 Gone" status on the .m3u8.
When discussing events like these I would like to point out one of the few rules on the site that differ from some others which is enforced rather strictly. It's worthwhile to read through the tos. I don't expect people to read that when they sign up because that is unrealistic, but now is a good time.
The audio loads. The video doesn't load now, it did when I posted it, it might have been removed.
What site rules are being violated? No one seems to be inciting violence, as far as I can tell. It's more the definition of violence that seems at issue. Are the police being violent, or are they engaging in "law enforcement", or, is there a difference, really?
Basically we have the world strictest no depictions of violence rule. It's basically the only strict rule here. Ironically because the video was broken it meant there wasn't a rule violation. And it looks like they have replaced the video with a live feed of a press conference.
We can always talk about the news. But people's deaths are not our content. Maybe I'm a little overly reverent about that. It's basically the one free speech exception on the site. I say every site gets to have one. Some say you can't have certain opinions. On Saidit you basically couldn't have nudity. I say let's not turn people getting killed into entertainment and then host an irreverent social gathering over the body. I'd rather be reverent over violence than nudity. The news media is the exact opposite. You can make entertainment out of people getting killed, but boobs are dangerous.
Anyways I'm also strict about it because I don't want to deal with folks backseating me over ambiguities. Reddit has selective enforcement of rules. I have nearly no rules and apply them perfectly and univerally with no favoritism.
I appreciate the no-violence rule. It can usually be found elsewhere. (Do links to it count? Not that I wish to link any.) It's not a problem now, but there might eventually be folks seeking to weaponize it against our current culture and community. For this reason, (not because I'm prudish), it might be worth considering a future no-nudity rule if/when there's too much to monitor and potential enemies weaponizing it with jail bait.
Actually, the video, as I recall, just showed people looking reverent and concerned while congregating around a memorial for the woman who was killed. This wasn't a depiction of the shooting, I don't think that's been released. It was a depiction of some demonstrators. There would have been no rule violation, there is no irony here.
Does this mean we can't post any videos of military action of any type, ever? It sounds like it, actually. That might limit communication a bit, sometimes, on a wide variety of public interest stories.
Actually, the reason they might have replaced the video with an audio report, is that the video was rather boring, and uninformative.
Actually, some other posts, by other people, on your site do have photographs depicting the car with the woman's body in it. Are you not concerned about them, for some reason?
Cool. I hadn't seen the video and that's why I was trying to see what the content was. Other people have posted stuff and I have removed it. But I didn't have to inquire in those cases because I could see what it was. I don't think I have anything missing currently but maybe I'm wrong.
Also my comment wasn't intended to single you out. It was also to post a reminder to everyone, most of whom probably haven't seen the tos that it is good to read at some point. Yours is the one content that didn't get removed. And I was trying to figure out what the video was so I wouldn't be in trouble for giving you preference.
Since you are saying I missed something I'm going to take another look.
On the subject of military conflict, news papers covered military conflict for a long time without video. If it is hard to find sources without the video attached then become the journalist. The news isn't showing that for any meaningful commentary on current events. They just want an excuse to be liveleak for a day to get shock traffic. Just because people in suits who parade themselves as respectable content outlets find an excuse to be liveleak for a day doesn't mean I want to be. Maybe I'm obvious that I have the lowest amount of respect possible for people in the media, in general. I'm not basing my standards on what they do.
I can't over-emphisize how much I am not trying to single you out. You are actually the last person I should be singling out, for sure. You just happened to have the first content on the site where the topic needed to be raised for the sake of the subject.
OK. I'll bear that in mind. I won't post any URL's containing pictures of violence of any type, whether it's military action, police action, criminal action, or whatever. Fair enough, no problem, I can always describe it, if it's relevant to some issue or discussion.
Should be. Will be is another story. He's a fed, so he doesn't have a local prosecutor to sell out their fellow gov worker like Derek Chauvin did. Pam Bondi isn't going to chase down this guy violating his training, which told them to stop setting up this trap with an excuse to shoot people. Internal DHS memos show that they've caught onto this practice and have pushed back against it, but agents are still doing it. It is calculated as an excuse to shoot people. Shooting someone in a car coming at you doesn't stop them anyway. So they are going out of their way to put their lives in a situation where they will have a flimsy excuse to shoot.
The guy picked up a minor bruise, "internal bleeding," because he didn't doge quick enough, as he was focused on getting a shot instead of protecting himself.
His actions 100% would be indefensible in court if that day were to happen. But it isn't. The government enforces the law, so government is above the law with rare exceptions. And this isn't one of them.
Yes, these people have been annoying ICE with honking and things like that. But government agents treat annoyance, not real interference, as an excuse to set up traps where eventually they will shoot a retard. Yes, she was a retard. But retards exist. Something is very wrong when the government does things calculated to give them excuses to shoot retards for sport, and boot lickers cheer. It will be any of these bootlickers one day, when an LEO is annoyed that they have rights or feels annoyed that they prefer to not wear a mask or avoid getting vaccinated instead of just following orders.
The future is a boot stepping perpetually onto a human face that voted for it.
Log in
On video so that's evidence
However, the evidence is against them. You feel otherwise? They shot into her car and killed her just for driving away.
True it looks unnecessary. But you can't just drive at a cop either.
That video doesn't seem to load. Does it work for anyone? I've tried in multiple browsers.
There is a "410 Gone" status on the .m3u8.
When discussing events like these I would like to point out one of the few rules on the site that differ from some others which is enforced rather strictly. It's worthwhile to read through the tos. I don't expect people to read that when they sign up because that is unrealistic, but now is a good time.
The audio loads. The video doesn't load now, it did when I posted it, it might have been removed.
What site rules are being violated? No one seems to be inciting violence, as far as I can tell. It's more the definition of violence that seems at issue. Are the police being violent, or are they engaging in "law enforcement", or, is there a difference, really?
Basically we have the world strictest no depictions of violence rule. It's basically the only strict rule here. Ironically because the video was broken it meant there wasn't a rule violation. And it looks like they have replaced the video with a live feed of a press conference.
We can always talk about the news. But people's deaths are not our content. Maybe I'm a little overly reverent about that. It's basically the one free speech exception on the site. I say every site gets to have one. Some say you can't have certain opinions. On Saidit you basically couldn't have nudity. I say let's not turn people getting killed into entertainment and then host an irreverent social gathering over the body. I'd rather be reverent over violence than nudity. The news media is the exact opposite. You can make entertainment out of people getting killed, but boobs are dangerous.
Anyways I'm also strict about it because I don't want to deal with folks backseating me over ambiguities. Reddit has selective enforcement of rules. I have nearly no rules and apply them perfectly and univerally with no favoritism.
I appreciate the no-violence rule. It can usually be found elsewhere. (Do links to it count? Not that I wish to link any.) It's not a problem now, but there might eventually be folks seeking to weaponize it against our current culture and community. For this reason, (not because I'm prudish), it might be worth considering a future no-nudity rule if/when there's too much to monitor and potential enemies weaponizing it with jail bait.
Actually, the video, as I recall, just showed people looking reverent and concerned while congregating around a memorial for the woman who was killed. This wasn't a depiction of the shooting, I don't think that's been released. It was a depiction of some demonstrators. There would have been no rule violation, there is no irony here.
Does this mean we can't post any videos of military action of any type, ever? It sounds like it, actually. That might limit communication a bit, sometimes, on a wide variety of public interest stories.
Actually, the reason they might have replaced the video with an audio report, is that the video was rather boring, and uninformative.
Actually, some other posts, by other people, on your site do have photographs depicting the car with the woman's body in it. Are you not concerned about them, for some reason?
Cool. I hadn't seen the video and that's why I was trying to see what the content was. Other people have posted stuff and I have removed it. But I didn't have to inquire in those cases because I could see what it was. I don't think I have anything missing currently but maybe I'm wrong.
Also my comment wasn't intended to single you out. It was also to post a reminder to everyone, most of whom probably haven't seen the tos that it is good to read at some point. Yours is the one content that didn't get removed. And I was trying to figure out what the video was so I wouldn't be in trouble for giving you preference.
Since you are saying I missed something I'm going to take another look.
On the subject of military conflict, news papers covered military conflict for a long time without video. If it is hard to find sources without the video attached then become the journalist. The news isn't showing that for any meaningful commentary on current events. They just want an excuse to be liveleak for a day to get shock traffic. Just because people in suits who parade themselves as respectable content outlets find an excuse to be liveleak for a day doesn't mean I want to be. Maybe I'm obvious that I have the lowest amount of respect possible for people in the media, in general. I'm not basing my standards on what they do.
I can't over-emphisize how much I am not trying to single you out. You are actually the last person I should be singling out, for sure. You just happened to have the first content on the site where the topic needed to be raised for the sake of the subject.
OK. I'll bear that in mind. I won't post any URL's containing pictures of violence of any type, whether it's military action, police action, criminal action, or whatever. Fair enough, no problem, I can always describe it, if it's relevant to some issue or discussion.
Murder lol. Dumb lesbian was there to fuck around and found out.
That ICE agent will be spending many years in Minneapolis prison, as will any other ICE agents who violate state laws in future.
🤣 you wish
Should be. Will be is another story. He's a fed, so he doesn't have a local prosecutor to sell out their fellow gov worker like Derek Chauvin did. Pam Bondi isn't going to chase down this guy violating his training, which told them to stop setting up this trap with an excuse to shoot people. Internal DHS memos show that they've caught onto this practice and have pushed back against it, but agents are still doing it. It is calculated as an excuse to shoot people. Shooting someone in a car coming at you doesn't stop them anyway. So they are going out of their way to put their lives in a situation where they will have a flimsy excuse to shoot.
The guy picked up a minor bruise, "internal bleeding," because he didn't doge quick enough, as he was focused on getting a shot instead of protecting himself.
His actions 100% would be indefensible in court if that day were to happen. But it isn't. The government enforces the law, so government is above the law with rare exceptions. And this isn't one of them.
Yes, these people have been annoying ICE with honking and things like that. But government agents treat annoyance, not real interference, as an excuse to set up traps where eventually they will shoot a retard. Yes, she was a retard. But retards exist. Something is very wrong when the government does things calculated to give them excuses to shoot retards for sport, and boot lickers cheer. It will be any of these bootlickers one day, when an LEO is annoyed that they have rights or feels annoyed that they prefer to not wear a mask or avoid getting vaccinated instead of just following orders.
The future is a boot stepping perpetually onto a human face that voted for it.