So I wanted to see this video of Pakistani security forces shooting unarmed Sarfraz Shah, who later

[closeupready]

died. He was shot after being accused of robbing someone.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2025287/Pakistani-soldier-sentenced-death-shooting-unarmed-man-video-shocked-world.html

You go to the bottom of the article, and there is a link to the video, which was posted to Youtube.

Instead of the video, you get the message:

This video has been removed as a violation of YouTube's policy on shocking and disgusting content.

:mad:

Here's the video:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/video/pakistan-rangers-shoot-unarmed-19-year-old-sarfaraz-shah/1/140934.html

[MineralMan]

1. OK. So, why did you want to see the video?

Apparently, it was gruesome. I'm quite satisfied with reading a story about it, and to see the photos included in the story. They were gruesome enough. I do not need to see the actual shooting.

[closeupready]

2. No offense but what a bizarre question. The video is a factual record of what happened.

Like the video of Rodney King's beating, you wouldn't instruct a jury to rely upon either the prosecution's spin or the defense's spin of what happened if footage existed of the disputed act.

No, I'm not on a jury, but is it really hard to figure out why news junkies and just regular concerned people would want to see actual footage of what happened?

[MineralMan]

4. No, it is not a bizarre question. I went to the news site, and there

were several gruesome photos at the link. I can't imagine that the video would provide more useful information. I asked why it was important to you to see the video, because I don't understand why anyone would voluntarily seek out a video of someone being shot that way. What information does it add? How would it improve your understanding of the incident?

Further, why do you suppose directing others to a video gruesome enough to be removed from Youtube is a good idea? I'm sorry, but I simply do not understand. You're welcome to explain if you wish.

Not a bizarre question at all.

[closeupready]

5. Wow. Did you even read my response to you aside from the title? I fully explained why. Sheez.

To repeat, that question is so bizarre, it makes me wonder what you're really asking me.

It's like asking why we need to see the coffins of American servicepeople who've died and whose remains are being repatriated. What information would photographs add? How would they improve our understanding that these people died?

Well, gee, ask anyone who remembers the Vietnam War. Duh. :eyes:

[MineralMan]

6. Of course I read your reply. Your reason appears to be that

you're a news junkie. I maintain that my question remains a valid one. Seeing the coffin of a dead soldier is in a different class than watching a man be shot and die on video. One is information. The other is violence porn. There is a reason Youtube removed the video. I support their decision.

As for the Vietnam war, I was serving in the USAF between 1965 and 1969, and protested against that war while still in uniform. So I remember it very well.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[William769]

3. +1.

:thumbsup: