"On January 22, 1987, the day before his sentencing, Dwyer called a press conference to “provide an update on the situation.” Many expected Dwyer to announce his resignation from office. At the conference, an agitated and nervous Dwyer once again professed his innocence, and declared that he would not resign as state treasurer. Those attending would hear his final words:

“I face a maximum sentence of 55 years in prison and a $300,000 fine for being innocent. Judge Muir has already told the press that he, “felt invigorated” when we were found guilty, and that he plans to imprison me as a deterrent to other public officials. But it wouldn’t be a deterrent because every public official who knows me knows that I am innocent; it wouldn’t be a legitimate punishment because I’ve done nothing wrong.” Then he proceeded “The guilty verdict has strengthened that resolve. But as we’ve discussed our plans to expose the warts of our legal system, people have said: “Why bother?” “No one cares.” “You’ll look foolish.” “60 Minutes, 20/20, the American Civil Liberties Union, Jack Anderson and others have been publicizing cases like yours for years, and it doesn’t bother anyone.”

At this point, Dwyer stopped with his prepared text and called to three of his staffers, giving each an envelope. It was later discovered that one contained a suicide note to his wife. The second was an organ donor card and other related materials. The third was a letter to the newly-inaugurated governor Robert P. Casey.

After handing out the envelopes, Dwyer opened a manila envelope and withdrew a .357 Magnum revolver, advising those in the crowd, “Please leave the room if this will offend you.” Those in attendance cried out to Dwyer, pleading with him to put the gun down (“Budd, don’t!” was heard on television.) Some tried to approach him. “Stay away, this thing will hurt someone,” he warned. Amid the cry of “Budd, Budd, Budd!” Dwyer put the gun barrel into his mouth and pulled the trigger. He collapsed against a wall in a sitting position, blood pouring from his nose, all in front of five television news cameras. Dwyer was declared dead at the scene at 11:31 a.m. CDT."

The last part of this is unecessary, and I'd give my vote to call this a snuff video. *discuss

This video is being sent to Sift Talk for discussion - discuss requested by Tymbrwulf.

Horrorshow tag?? Doesn't belong in the Terrible channel, either. *nochannel *politics *dark *controversy

I learned about Dwyer's public suicide from a Photojournalism book.

This is snuff and so is this.

The entire focus of the content in both of them is the event of the death (which takes place in the videos), and neither is "presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary".

I don't know when that "displayed for entertainment" clause was added to the snuff definition, but if you're going to stick by that then you have set yourself up to judge which deaths are entertaining or not. Not a good idea. You might as well get rid of the rest of the definition if you go that route. Apparently, if the death is a MAJOR portion, or the ENTIRE portion of a news report then it's OK, because it wasn't for entertainment.

I say get rid of the "displayed for entertainment" part of the snuff definition and then enforce the rule universally, no matter how "noble" some sifts might be.
If it's part of a "lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary" then it wasn't made to be for entertainment or some kind of snuff porn anyway.

ie.

Please do not post pornography or "snuff" films (which we define as the explicit depiction of loss of human life).

Note: The presence of human fatality is acceptable and not considered "snuff" if presented as a limited portion of a lengthy educational, informative news report or documentary. Our definition of "snuff" does include but is not exclusive to any short clip in which a human fatality occurs whether or not any victims are actually visible on camera.

Shoot. I can't change the messed-up tags. Please fix this, MrFisk. This isn't a horror movie produced for entertainment, nor a commercially released production. This is footage of an actual premeditated and very public suicide. After careful thought, I agree w/ Tymbrwulf that this is clearly snuff and shouldn't be on the site.

edit: Thanks for fixing the tags.
Also, after reading the very graphic text of what happens in this video, I didn't even feel the need to watch it, if the description is completely accurate.

I'm off to work, but I expect some good discussion about this controversy over the course of the next 24-48 hours. Good night, and good luck.

This is snuff. Get rid of it.

snuff

I knew it was coming, but I still wish it could be unseen.

Damn

Not for Videosift IMO.

Scary stuff, obviously snuff under our own rules, though it does have as much merit to be here as the other mentally challenged karate guy beaten to death.

Reasons for keeping:
Interesting.
Not for entertainment.
Historic value

Reasons for killing:
Death on tape

I'm glad to see someone pushing the envelope a little again though, let's see what the result will be.

Merit? I don't think so. I guess it is an historical record (on tape) of what happened... but other than that there is no purpose other than to watch some guy commit a shocking act. The other vid (man getting beaten from 1984), which is probably snuff (though unconfirmed as to whether or not the man in the vid actually died), was allowed in that it was to stir up a cold case into looking for the perpetrator(s) and seek justice for the apparent abuse/beatdown/ murder that (allegedly) took place. Same case could be made for the recent submitted video of footage of the journalist/ civilians getting blown up in Iraq. I don't see anything close to a purpose for keeping this here.

I'm not going to watch it as I have no wish to have the image of a man blowing his brains out, and I too don't think it should be here. A version of this with the events leading up to the actual suicide and some text information about what happened, maybe... but not this, not the actual act, it doesn't help anyone to see it surely?

This is pretty horrible, full stop. Still, fits the definition of not snuff- newsworthy, noteworthy, historic, etc. I say keep it but for Dog's sakemake it clear what it is so nobody can accidentally see this- once seen, it can't be unseen.

Paused at :54 with my heart in my throat. Disturbing.

I am calling this a snuff film because the entire process of his death is completely unnecessary to the content of the video. In all honestly this video could end as soon as he puts the gun to his head and then cut off. We would still all know what happens, but we wouldn't be watching another person end their life.

If you can find a shorter version of this video that isn't as graphic, then by all means I have no problem with you posting it, but when I see a video of blood gushing out of someone's head I no longer feel like I'm on videosift, but going through the dregs of liveleak.

hey thats a real fucked up thing to post, I know a thing or two about fucked up and this pars with its definition.

I'm okay with it. It's news.

>> ^blankfist:

I'm okay with it. It's news.



?
it was news 20 fuckin years ago. now its just a suicide on video with a *.history and *.wtf tag

I happen-stanced upon this gruesome legacy quit innocently. To be honest, I ain't seen the end, either. I present it to the viewers of VideoSift with reason. Are we to allow snuff on the Sift, what is snuff, and how do we enforce our rules?
Evidence has proven that we allow snuff on VideoSift. The contention lies in how we define it.
This video--as deplorable as it is--should remain on the Sift. I believe that suppression is foolhardy. I think that the natural downvote of disagreeableness is more persuasive.
Everyone has a videocam. This pickle won't un-dill itself...

Should we return this and let the votes decide?

Wow. I was surprised at the amount of blood that poured from his nose in such a short amount of time. I never pictured it quite like that, I guess, the aftermath of shooting one's self.

Maybe it's a sign of desensitization, but I'm left pondering rather than shocked or offended.

I wonder if he really was innocent. I'd rather die than spend what was left of my life in prison, too, regardless.

I don't think this video should stay, along with the other recent "snuff" video. This is a video sharing site, not a site that pushes the boundaries of what's right and wrong. I don't believe that there's any moral obligation for these two videos to stay on VS. Leave these discussions to other sites more catered towards this particular type of content.

If these two videos stay, then I believe the snuff rule becomes meaningless. If it's left to the votes, I think they'll get upvoted anyway. But it shouldn't be about that. It should be about these two videos being removed, the rules upheld and leaving Videosift as a place where people can come to to watch videos that don't shock or offend people.

>> ^Issykitty:

Should we return this and let the votes decide?


That would defeat the whole purpose of having rules of what is allowable to be Sifted. As I argued here, if someone posted a porn vid it would probably get enough votes to stay as well. How many people upvote it isn't the issue--whether we're okay with the Sift showcasing porn and snuff is. To quote gwiz665's comment from the other discussion thread: "If this is allowed to stay, the snuff rule is as good as null and void - we have discarded other sifts which were no worse than this. 'People will decide by votes' no they won't, that's not the way it works. The rule is there to suspend any voting on something like this. The rules exist to prevent people from upvoting this kind of stuff."

I agree with burdturgler--we should never be okay with hosting either porn or snuff for any reason. We should enforce the rule (as reworded by burdturgler) and do so uniformly. No exceptions. That means nuking both this one and Mentally Challenged Man Beaten to Death or substituting links to news articles about the incidents, so that they follow current Sift guidelines.

@MrFisk: Thanks for the timely Sift.

Hey man, nice shot.

NO.

If this is allowed to stay, I'm gonna push the envelope even further and post the same one with keyboard cat at the end.... I'm sure people will love that.

Y'know, I've said this before and I'll probably say it again, but we need to have a more clear-cut rule on whether or not filmed deaths are allowed on the sift. This business of *.discussing every single video like this, and having the exact same debate over and over again is just a waste of time. Either stuff like this should be allowed, or it shouldn't. If this isn't okay, why is the aforementioned martial arts video okay? Or the video with the little girl dying on the sidewalk of a gunshot wound in Iraq? Personally I think there are other places for videos like that, and that they don't necessarily belong here -- but more importantly, there needs to be some kind of broader decision made either way.

Of course, there won't be. We'll have this debate many, many more times. Oh well.

I saw this video on TV once. When people ask what it's like to see a gunshot wounding to the head I tell them to look for this video.

There is more history to this video then one might think.

The Suicide depicted in this video was more of a Sepuku to prove that he was not what the conspiracy, he thought, was against him made him out to be. He believed that he was innocent, and as such it drove him to the ultimate choice; death.

Since Dwyer died in office before being removed upon sentencing, his widow, Joanne, was able to collect full survivor benefits totaling over $1.28 million. A spokesman for Dwyer, immediately after the suicide, suggested Dwyer may have killed himself to retain the state-provided pension for his household, which had been ruined by legal defense costs.[19]

It's news and every one should know about it.

>> ^NordlichReiter:

It's news and every one should know about it.


Knowing about it is one thing, SHOWING HIM ACTUALLY BLOWING HIS BRAINS OUT IS COMPLETELY DIFFERENT.

Jesus, this self rightous shit that we should all know about and watch this event is bullshit.

Knowing ABOUT the event, knowing that it happened and the events surrounding it is one thing, and definitely history is important.

BUT

Actually watching him do that is something else entirely, and doesn't really benefit ANYONE.

No to this video, No to people who think it's some friggen moral imperitive that we all watch it.

Where's Dag and Lucky on this?

I'm starting to wonder why we have the "no snuff" rule. Have we ever actually discarded a video based on that rule? We may have, but I don't remember any. There's always an excuse about it being news or important or posted with "noble intent" or some shit.

It's always news when people are killed! These excuses can be applied to any such video. Either get rid of the rule or start enforcing it.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I'm starting to wonder why we have the "no snuff" rule. Have we ever actually discarded a video based on that rule? We may have, but I don't remember any. There's always an excuse about it being news or important or posted with "noble intent" or some shit.
It's always news when people are killed! These excuses can be applied to any such video. Either get rid of the rule or start enforcing it.


Faces of Death, the full-length movie which I posted was declared snuff and discarded.

@xxovercastxx

I believe we've also discarded the ones a few years back where a man trapped in an airport in Vancouver was killed.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag.(show it anyway)

I'm sorry that I just had to watch that as part of my Sift duties. This post has very little value except to show someone graphically blowing their own brains out. I've read all your comments and I'm saying we *discard it. If you want to view it, you know where to find it.

Discarding this post - discard requested by member dag.