Criminals Gone Wild

[RationalBiker]

** Warning: The linked website has a video which have images that may disturb you **

Lots of topics have been debated on here from movies to video games to pictures on the internet demonstrating the decay of our society. Here's another topic for that consideration.

This guy allegedly goes around filming real crime as it happens. Reportedly, criminals even come to him to have their crimes filmed. He has taken this footage and made a DVD that is now for sale (and is selling well I understand) called Criminals Gone Wild.

I wondering if any police agencies are reviewing this footage and considering whether or not this guy is merely a "journalist" reporting crime in his hood or if he is an accomplice.

What do you guys think?

[DavidV]

Why wouldn't police departments welcome criminals willingness to videotape their activities? This can't be a winning career strategy for the criminals.

[Pianoman83]

What do you guys think?

I think I want to throw up. *ugh!*

[tps_fan]

I (was) wondering if any police agencies are reviewing this footage and considering whether or not this guy is merely a "journalist" reporting crime in his hood or if he is an accomplice.

In fact, the NYPD is researching that question:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/ny_crime/2..._gone_wild.html

I refuse to watch the footage. I'm already aware of the nature of crime from third-, second-, and first-person vantages, and that is in regard to both non-violent and violent types.

Certainly, the product is philosophically of a Nihilistic nature as well as being psychologically sadistic. I can't say that this development is particularly new or substantial. We've already witnessed Hollywood's stream of horror-glorifying films, and then there's the _G.T.A._ video game series. (...not to forget the difference being that fiction shouldn't automatically and inherently entail a criminal investigation.)

For once, I agree with a news reporter, the filmmaker is definitely depraved and immoral. I think the proper legal evaluation will be more apparent as the police gather information... and likely no sooner or later.

I also would add that using this scenario as a justification to invoke "Good Samaritan" laws is based on the slippery slope fallacy. Of course, even that justification would be old news given the nature of ethics and politics based on altruism.

In other words, I have to figure that whether the filmmaker turns himself in or not isn't likely to be legally compelling without evidence of his direct involvement of a crime. Again, from a moral standpoint, he's a beast. He should be boycotted and humiliated since he appears to be sanctioning evil.

[RationalBiker]

Why wouldn't police departments welcome criminals willingness to videotape their activities? This can't be a winning career strategy for the criminals.

Well, one thing to consider is that you have to weigh the value of the video tapes being useful in successfully prosecuting crimes versus encouraging more people to be criminals so they can be "famous". It will be interesting to see if any successful prosecutions result from the production of this DVD or the youtube videos encouraged by it.

"Winning career strategy" is not a phrase I usually associate with your average street thug. However, "representin" who is tough and who cares less is great for "street cred".

[RationalBiker]

I can't say that this development is particularly new or substantial. We've already witnessed Hollywood's stream of horror-glorifying films, and then there's the _G.T.A._ video game series.

Personally, I put it on a different (more substantial) level because it is real. It's one thing to use special effects to film, say, babies on spikes and quite another to actually put babies on spikes.

[tps_fan]

Personally, I put it on a different (more substantial) level because it is real. It's one thing to use special effects to film, say, babies on spikes and quite another to actually put babies on spikes.

Certainly. The results are different. My point was that the motive is _essentially_ the same viz. one of destruction for the sake of it (even if it involves other false "benefits" for the Nihilists e.g. fame and fortune.) In other words, they are different types of Nihilists, but they share common cause.

To further clarify, I'll make one of my sentences more explicit:

"We've already witnessed Hollywood's stream of horror-glorifying films, and then there's the _G.T.A._ video game series. (...not to forget the _relevant_ difference being that fiction shouldn't automatically and inherently entail a criminal investigation _as opposed to when a crime occurs_.)"

Edited December 22, 2007 by tps_fan

[Benpercent]

Utterly amazing. I found the "Fuck the Police" video to be the most irritating, where the people would try to justify their crimes by saying they're "just doing their job" or they're "just getting by."

It's amazing. We should just go straight ahead and call racism an example of a bigger problem called collective prejudice, or something else if I'm referring to something that has a name I'm ignorant of. Calling all cops pigs is the same all calling all African people darkies, or all Hispanic people wetbacks, or all Caucasian people crackers, and so on. Different story, same collective mistake.

And this line of videos will do nothing more than promote racial stereotypes, as most of the criminals shown on tape are mostly of African descent.

I will take great pleasure in hearing of these criminals assisting in their own arrests. I think the camera guy should be arrested too, as he is encouraging this immorality.

-----

On a side note, doesn't it seem hypocritical to call African people African-Americans while calling Caucasian people just Caucasian? Since the only full-blooded Americans are Native Americans, wouldn't it be more correct to say Caucasian-American? I just drop the "American" and don't worry about it. I'm uncertain though. What do you guys think?

P.S. Ooooo my blood is boiling after browsing some more.

Edited December 23, 2007 by Benpercent

[John McVey]

This guy allegedly goes around filming real crime as it happens. Reportedly, criminals even come to him to have their crimes filmed. He has taken this footage and made a DVD that is now for sale (and is selling well I understand) called Criminals Gone Wild.

I wondering if any police agencies are reviewing this footage and considering whether or not this guy is merely a "journalist" reporting crime in his hood or if he is an accomplice.

Note: I haven't watched the videos and I don't think I will bother. If he had just been filming as an independent observer then he really is just an amateur journalist and due the same protections as any other journalist ('accredited' or not). I think this would hold even if we might raise an eyebrow at his (and other journalists') motives.

However, as you note, he is becoming an active participant in aspects of these crimes. IANAL, but if the prospect of his filming of a crime increases the chance that it will be committed or increases the degree of harm caused to others and their property, and he knowingly goes along with this, then I would say that he is indeed an accomplice in those particular crimes. Similarly, if his filming is being taken up by the crims' peers, and he is knowingly profiting from this through the sale of his DVD's among them, then he is guilty of some form of incitement.

The principles involved here go beyond just him. As I recall, exactly the same kinds of arguments were raised in relation to various media outlets (CNN, Reuters, AP, I think) involvement with Palestinian thugs and whether or not those news outlets are accomplices in the Palestinians' staged-for-camera crimes against Israelis and others. I am not in a position to make a firm judgement, but I am sympathetic to the idea of a prosecution of these media groups for that, and hence likewise for this junior version. (Cynical rhetorical question: Is he cobbling together a CV for a job application to them as a cameraman?) The right to free speech is not a get-out-jail-free card for anyone contributing to the commission of a crime while toting a camera (especially not when lying to the public and passing it off as 'news' is thrown into the mix).

JJM

[aequalsa]

On a side note, doesn't it seem hypocritical to call African people African-Americans while calling Caucasian people just Caucasian? Since the only full-blooded Americans are Native Americans, wouldn't it be more correct to say Caucasian-American? I just drop the "American" and don't worry about it. I'm uncertain though. What do you guys think?

Since continents seem to be the primary racially dividing factor, I would suggest "European-American" as the more consistent racial descriptor.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Since continents seem to be the primary racially dividing factor, I would suggest "European-American" as the more consistent racial descriptor.

Literally speaking, *I* am a "native American" as I was born here. Where my ancestors were born does not matter.

Follow a "native American" (in the PC sense) individual's ancestry back 2000, 6000 or 12000 years (depending on their tribe--On the basis of linguistic evidence (which I caveat is still quite controvesial) there appear to have been three separate migrations across what is now the Bering Sea) and they are from Asia.

Some linguists also hold that Indo-Europeans, as a people who spoke a language ancestral to many of our modern languages, originate from an area near the Caucasus. That would include most European cultures (excluding the Basque, Hungarians, Finns, Estonians and some other small ethnicities just west of the Urals) as well as the Iranians and northern Indians (i.e., from India). "Indo European" also would exclude Jews actually descended from the original Hebrews, as well as Jews descended from the Khazars (however there has been a lot of interbreeding over the last two millenia). So "Caucasian-American" may be more accurate than you would think.

[aequalsa]

"Caucasian-American" may be more accurate than you would think.

Nothing wrong with the term, Caucasians. But then, should we not likewise then find a common ancestral tribe of Africa and Asia rather then use the term, African-Americans or Asian-Americans? To be clear, i am not a big fan of the terms at all since they are used mainly for government enforced racism. It just seems that they ought to be consistent in the words they use as pertains to each "race."

Where it gets really confusing is with white Australians that immigrate here, though. I suppose they would be European-Australian-Americans. I'll have to keep working on my racism techniques.

[Jon Pizzo]

I watched the trailor, and quite frankly, I don't know how this person could get this footage without being an accomplice, as no criminal in their 'right mind' would let a random observer, for example, film them killing a rival gang member.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Nothing wrong with the term, Caucasians. But then, should we not likewise then find a common ancestral tribe of Africa and Asia rather then use the term, African-Americans or Asian-Americans? To be clear, i am not a big fan of the terms at all since they are used mainly for government enforced racism. It just seems that they ought to be consistent in the words they use as pertains to each "race."

Where it gets really confusing is with white Australians that immigrate here, though. I suppose they would be European-Australian-Americans. I'll have to keep working on my racism techniques.

Actually, we are all Tanzanians if you go back far enough.

And the Americans most likely to be descended from slave owners are black Americans. They should pay their own damned reparations.

Retarded, isn't it? But 1) logic doesn't matter in our post modern age anyway [please realize that's sarcasm!], and 2) I've hijacked enough for one day.

[Benpercent]

I'll have to take credit for the derailing Steve, as I was the one who brought up the topic. Maybe I ought to make a topic, unless there is one already.

Anyhow, I was most shocked at the clips that showed one guy shooting another guy laying on the ground multiple times. The only way this video series could stoop any lower is to tape, and profit, off of people being murdered. I can't call the camera guy a reporter because of the title of his recordings, which almost seems to suggest satire. Since the criminals actually go to him to have their crimes recorded, it would be accurate to say that he is encouraging crime.

Then again, why not let him go and keep doing this so we can get the dumbest of all criminals off the streets?