I agree with Zor.. If the only thing that makes it objectionable is the KNOWLEDGE that someone died, I don't think it should be removed.

ie. if the only way I know someone died is because of the title or someone's google skills, then it's not really snuff. Or, if I can change a title (and comments) and no one would otherwise object.. I think it is a dumb reason to remove a video.

Take for instance, motocross knocked silly after stunt. Or really really bad highway pile up. It's really dumb that a 100 car pile up can stay, but the truck collision has to go.. and it is nearly identical footage other than the knowledge someone died.

>> ^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.