In response to the "What would you do?" editorial, if you have to ask, then I think you already know the answer. Or are you hoping there will be enough sickos who would actually express a desire to watch the torture-killing of an animal?
Just because something is already viewable on the Web doesn't justify Nashoba Publishing's pandering to the gutter. Would you show on your website the burning of the Koran? I seriously doubt it. But if someone set fire to puppies, that would be OK?
The issue is journalistic integrity and whether the showing of the video serves the public good. Reputable newspapers don't resort to graphic, sensationalistic and gratuitous imagery to complete a story. In this case, a description of the crime is more than sufficient.
The focus of the story (and any imagery) should be on the grossly inept and/or sadistic hunter who perpetrated this disgusting act of animal cruelty. Report on the prosecution of this individual and his ability to plea down to a lesser sentence. Don't insult my intelligence by asking if I need to see a shocking video of a needlessly suffering creature.