On a related topic. I was trying to search videos from the Wisconsin shooting of the 17 year old who shot and killed two people and injured one. Every video I clicked on was already taken down due to offensive content. I found it strange given that Youtube is full of videos of shooting incidents.
Now, I do understand the families of the victims may want the videos taking down. But it seems to me the mob of people flagging these videos have a different motive. This shows that trusting the community to flag offensive content has its flaws. (although at Youtube's scale there's no alternative really)
That's actually very disturbing considering the amount of misinformation over this incident, and that they're charging that kid for murder!
Were you able to find the videos? They tell a pretty different story than the media narrative. Every person he shoots attacked him or had a gun. He doesn't shoot the kid behind them who had his hands up, or any other bystanders. He then walks with his hands up and turns himself in to police.
It's still up on several alternative sites (BitChute and PeerTube instances) along with some I can't mention here. I always use youtube-dl to download YouTube videos, Tweets and Reddit videos for anything that's going on right now; especially shootings. They get taken down pretty fast and it has a chilling effect because people are only seeing the CNN/MSNBC/FOX versions that are HEAVILY edited.
Earlier footage indicates the first man shot was attempting to start a fight with the militiamen, but there's a gap in the timeline where nobody was filming before the fight broke out.
The NYT has a very good article on the subject (and I'm a man who's very critical of the NYT)
OK I found a video showing the first fatal shooting [1]. It's not as clear as the video showing the mob chase (where it indeed looked like self defense) but from what I can tell the person who died got shot while running away from the shooter (it's hard to tell where the shooter is exactly during this time). Doesn't look like self defense to me. Hopefully there are better recordings of the whole incident.
Update: I take it back what I said. I found another video [2] that clears the picture. The guy wasn't running away from the shooter, he was chasing the shooter and throwing something at him. He then kept running after him and the shooter turns around and shoots him. The confusing part is that she shooter is shown coming from behind after the shooting happened. But it's because he goes around the car after the shooting and comes from the other side. I now believe all the shooting he did that night was self defense. He wasn't supposed to be there and play police but that's a different story.
Watch the actual video. Dude pulls the gun and it bringing it around to shoot the kid. This is after the kid gets kicked in the head. The guy is also a convicted felon.
I do believe what he did was straight up self defense.
> Dude pulls the gun and it bringing it around to shoot the kid.
But the kid had already pointed his own gun and actually already shot someone.
If seeing someone pulling a gun and starting to point it at you is justification to shoot in self defense, then the guy who got shot was acting in self-defense, according to you. I guess the only thing he did wrong was not shoot quicker than the kid.
How can your self-defense logic only apply to the guy doing the shooting but not to the guy not shooting?
This is the issue. There is ZERO video of this (only the aftermath). We don't know why that first guy got shot in the head, or if it was this kid that did it (forensics will show) and that guy he shot had a criminal records.
It could have been a self defense shot too. His ability to control himself after the two he shot on video goes to enforce that idea.
The kid had zero record. It's a bad situation for sure, but I don't think there is enough evidence to say the kid didn't act in self defense.
Self defense is an affirmative defense, so the onus is on him to prove that he was acting in self defense, not the other way around.
Anyway, it's a lot more complicated than this. I expect the prosecution to make the argument that he deliberately travelled to the event with an illegal weapon to provoke a situation where he could justify attacking someone in "self defense". That's still murder, even if he was in a genuinely threatening situation. And while Wisconsin has no duty to retreat laws, juries can consider opportunities to retreat when deciding if an act of self defense was actually necessary.
This is also clearly not community policing, since he obviously travelled from Illinois to aggressively confront a community he is not a member of.
I don’t think shooting three people can be considered a demonstration of self control. The standard is to shoot zero people, which I guess everyone else managed that night?
> The kid had zero record.
That can’t really be used as proof of innocence. You wouldn’t be able to convict anyone, since everyone starts off with zero record. He’s only 17, so hasn’t managed to avoid serious trouble for very long.
The guy in this thread being downvoted clearly has a political bias but the part of his argument advocating for access to the raw original length video is reasonable.
If youtube wants to disable comments, throw up warnings or blur out gore then fine but suppressing media from a highly politically charged situation is a mistake.
> I want the truth. That's something all US media is failing to give us right now.
What truth is this you are so deprived of? I presume you have some "real" source of truth that's more reliable than media that fact-checks itself and issues corrections?
> that's more reliable than media that fact-checks itself and issues corrections
oh boy. I'm not even going to start in on this one. If you actually believe any of the "fact checks" done by your favourite news outlet, instead of going out and doing a lot of research from a bunch of different sources and viewing the full actual video of events in context, you're not getting the right picture; not even remotely the right picture.
We've never had a media that's more blatantly bias and unreliable than the one we have right now.
I would highly recommend you watch the 2019 documentary Hoaxed. You're immediately going to dismiss it when you look it up because of the people in it; which goes to show how bad current media bias is.
I don't think everything from the documentary should be taken at face value, but it's still incredibly valuable in learning how the narrative has been so insanely skewed today.
I took a watch. Honestly, it's lazy and dumb. The siloing of modern social-media justifies the behavior of Cernovic and his ilk? There is genuine propaganda being actively promoted by malign actors in our media ecosystem, but Cernovic tries to use this as an excuse for his malign promotion of propaganda and misinformation.
That movie is by and for Mike Cernovic's existing audience. It was crowd funded by his audience, produced by his production company, and promoted on far-right websites where he contributes. The producers and directors appear to be mostly info-wars style far-right propagandists. Event the glowing IMDB reviews describe it as "preaching to the choir".
The project of Hoaxed is to create false equivalency between the misdeeds of the larger media industry, and the specific business model of promoting far-right misinformation that people like Cernovic engage in.
edit: I broadly agree with this guys take on the movie [1], which he expresses at greater length and clarity than I am presently able.
Right wing propagandists flooded twitter and reddit with deceptive edits, frame grabs, and narratives. I expect there are now multiple retaliatory take down campaigns by multiple groups and bot networks to try to preserve only videos that support their preferred narrative.
I mean the NYT has the videos and very clearly shows that he acted defensively each time. I was surprised by how clearly they were willing to show that considering their bias, I didn’t really read the content around the video, but that alone was interesting. Of course the title at the time made it sound like he was guilty so...
Followup reporting indicates that he was not asked to guard the business that he was "protecting", that the business asked him and others not to get involved and they did anyway, and that he instigated the altercation with the men chasing him in the video.
Here's an interview with a reporter who was on scene and rendered aid to the first victim. He gives a minute by minute recount of what happened from his perspective.
The instigation that led to the second set of altercations isn't entirely clear.
Now, I do understand the families of the victims may want the videos taking down. But it seems to me the mob of people flagging these videos have a different motive. This shows that trusting the community to flag offensive content has its flaws. (although at Youtube's scale there's no alternative really)