*discuss

This is snuff... per the sift guidelines:

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

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.

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

I vote for it to stay. Newsworthy.

Newsworthy is not the same as news content. This is snuff - 38 seconds of someone performing a dangerous stunt and dying as a result.

Stupid moral sifters have declared all sorts of retardedness, like HIGHWAY CAMERAS SHOWING CARS AND TRUCKS COLLIDING is snuff.

Any video of a human soul leaving the body must be removed***

**animal snuff is ok, only famous people being dead is somehow "historical", occasionally a cop shooting is "news", don't ask bawwww babies to be self-consistent.. they don't know how

Alright JD, climb down off the horse. I disagree with the policy just as much as you do, but it is the policy. And guess what - you and I don't get to make it. We can comment on it, advocate for changing it, and offer opinions on videos to which it may apply, but that's as far as it goes. So, if you've got a problem with it, create a sift talk post, take it up with dag, or start your own site. And if you're in the mood, why not leave a comment here that's actually relevant to this particular video.

How is it snuff, he is seriously injured in this video

He died in hospital
news story here

"...Lusk, a Temecula resident, had been in a medically induced coma, with swelling of the brain, at Calderon Guardia Hospital in San Jose. A spokesman at the hospital said he suffered severe brain damage and a possible spinal cord injury."

Videosift snuff rule is simple, you cannot post some random person dying on video - the only exceptions beings the ones given.

I vote *return and change the title, he was stretchered off seriously injured at that point.

and I agree is sad, always when you see someone clearly hurt and they play the loud stadium music to distract
v

Whatever it is...it's very sad.

>> ^Zonbie:
How is it snuff if he does not even die on the video?!
He died in hospital

That's really splitting hairs. It's a good bet he was brain dead almost immediately after impact. I don't see how the fact that a doctor waited a couple of days to declare him so makes any difference. As for being taken off on a stretcher, well, I'm pretty sure that would have happened in any case - I don't think they'd drive a hearse into the stadium.

Videosift snuff rule is simple, you cannot post some random person dying on video - the only exceptions beings the ones given.

Actually, as joedirt noted, it's not at all simple. Celebrity or "randomness" of the person involved is not relevant - the Zapruder film was punted too. The one consistency in the application of this rule that seems to have held up is whether the video contains some commentary or documentary value other than the incident itself.

Ban all videos where a person has cancer, or heck even if they eventually died. Chris Farley videos where he is using coke are essentially snuff films then.

We really need to update the policy. I thought it was human soul leaving the body. (because animal snuff IS allowed) Now I see it is gravely injured videos (without commentary). Um.. Ok. (Zapruder was upheld like the first gazillion times before the bawwwwww babies took over the sift)

oh come on joe - don't be obtuse. Human soul leaving the body? Really? Do you even believe in a human soul? Or more to the point, can you identify that moment on an internet video?

If you're being sarcastic to make the point that such a rule is effectively impossible to implement in any consistent way, then just say so. I think the commentary/documentation requirement does make it clear cut, and everything I've read on VS seems to point to that being the fundamental criterion. Do you have some evidence otherwise? Some discussion that I missed that put forward another criterion?

I think the whole rule ought to be scrapped entirely - just let the votes determine what is or isn't snuff. But that's apparently not how the powers that be want it.

dammit for hijacking this video's thread - create a sift talk post for a generalized discussion

"Newsworthy" on it's own doesn't make snuff ok to post. It needs to be part of a "lengthy" news report, not a short clip that just depicts the event which takes a human life. IMO this is snuff. The clip is very short and just shows this event. He may not have died right on the spot, but he didn't live for very long after.

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

I feel it's borderline - we're not seeing the guy's death in this video, and it's not particularly graphic, but I can definitely see why some feel it's snuff.

*notsnuff

*news

Probably not snuff, because he didn't die in the video. The pictures are not particularly horrific either, even if they are sad.

The argument could be made that if this had been buffered by 15 seconds of news speak: "Freestyle motocross star Jeremy Lusk, 24, has died as a result of head injuries sustained in a weekend crash during a competition in Costa Rica, and we warn you these may be disturbing images."

No one would question it. So I think our standard should be basically what a news program would choose to show. This is just the raw feed.

It's not just posted for entertainment (it's not in comedy or anything), the framing of the story is reasonable and the victim is only a victim of his own choice to do a dangerous sport. If he had hit someone else who had died, I would probably not have wanted it here. But as it is, I have no problem with it.

Adding video to channels (News) - requested by gwiz665.

If this video had been titled "douchebag motocross rider gets knocked out cold" we wouldn't be having this discussion. I see plenty of videos on the sift and on youtube where it is very probable that someone died. The only difference is that you know here what the outcome is. I think this video serves a broader purpose in countering the notion that these types of stunts always end Johnny Knoxville style with a bunch of cackling drunks laughing at the perp whose clutching his battered testicles. There are real actual consequences to these types of stunts and highlighting that in a tasteful way is not snuff.

I don't think having this on the sift will hurt the site at all. It's an extreme athlete doing what he loved but suffering the realities of the risks these guys take for our entertainment. Nobody likes that he was injured or that he died. I say we *return it and let the votes decide it.

...also, my co-worker's wife was this guy's manager and she's pulling to get it pulled off of youtube, chances are, it won't last.

Returning this video from Sift Talk - return requested by rottenseed.

Zor - I disagree that such a title would have made a difference. But clearly I'm in the minority on this. rottenseed is right - let the votes do the talking.

*promote

Self promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Tuesday, February 10th, 2009 7:21pm PST - promote requested by original submitter Zor.

This video has been discarded due to negative votes by members.