Clavicular
Screenshot from YouTube

A chaotic livestream turned into a crisis that has rocked the online streaming world and ignited urgent debate about content moderation, personal safety, and legal accountability.

Braden 'Clavicular' Peters, the 19-year-old Kick streamer at the centre of a shocking Christmas Eve livestream, has been banned from the Kick platform after video clips circulated online appeared to show his Tesla Cybertruck moving over a person lying on its windscreen during a broadcast on 24 December 2025. The footage rapidly spread across social media, prompting intense backlash from viewers, platform observers, and legal commentators alike.

Calls to Peters' Kick channel now return an error message indicating that the page cannot be found, a removal consistent with an account suspension or ban. Kick has not issued a public statement about the action or its reasoning.

The Incident Captured Live

The sequence of events that triggered this controversy began during an IRL (in real life) livestream when Peters was driving his Tesla Cybertruck and broadcasting to his audience. In viral clips shared on X, an individual is seen lying directly across the front of the vehicle's windscreen. Moments later, and after an off-camera voice urges Peters to 'start driving', the Cybertruck appears to move forward, seemingly rolling over the individual. During the episode, Peters can be heard saying, 'Is he dead? Hopefully, a remark that amplified public outrage once the footage was widely shared online.

Additional clips from the same livestream show Peters speaking with an individual wearing a reflective safety jacket. In that exchange, he asserts he was acting out of fear and confusion, telling the person, 'They were surrounding our car... I can't see s**t... when you're afraid... I don't know what's going on.' He also alleges that people nearby appeared armed, claiming he could see 'a pistol' through clothing. These assertions have not been independently verified, and no official law enforcement statement has been released to confirm weapon presence at the scene.

As the episode unfolded and the clips spread rapidly on social media, Peters' Kick account became inaccessible, widely interpreted as a ban or suspension by the streaming platform. Attempts to access his channel now return a standard 'page cannot be found' error message, the type associated with removed or suspended accounts.

Reactions From Peers and Associates

The controversial incident drew immediate attention from other high-profile streamers, including Adin Ross, who contacted Peters live after the event. Ross appeared on a Kick livestream and relayed information from an associate who said the individual allegedly struck by the Cybertruck 'is not dead,' dispelling some earlier speculation about a fatality. He criticised viewers' reactions in the livestream chat, responding to negative comments with 'Why are you all spamming Ls? Y'all are weird.'

In the same broadcast, Ross offered what he described as legal advice to Peters, urging him to continue recording the situation on another platform while refraining from making statements until the facts were clearer. 'You need to be live for this... Don't say anything... and just don't say anything,' Ross said, while also offering to help Peters connect with legal counsel.

Security personnel present at the scene also surfaced online defending Peters' actions. One is heard in a circulated clip saying: 'He's a good guy... he did what he had to do, at least your brother's safe,' framing the incident as an act of self-defence rather than reckless behaviour. These supportive comments fuel contentious debate over the streamer's intent and judgment in the moments before his vehicle moved forward.

Platform Responsibility and Policy Failures

The incident has catalysed fresh scrutiny of Kick's policies on IRL livestreaming and moderation. Critics argue that the platform's apparent failure to intervene during the initial live broadcast, which showed dangerous and potentially violent conduct, demonstrates a systemic weakness in content monitoring and real-time intervention. Others contend that the ban was too slow, noting that hours passed before the footage was removed and the account became inaccessible.

No official response from Kick has been published to explain its decision or outline next steps in terms of policy enforcement and user safety. The lack of transparency has left creators, viewers, and digital rights experts seeking clarity on how platforms should balance creator freedoms with public safety imperatives when extreme content unfolds in real time.

Legal Questions and Unanswered Details

At present, there has been no public confirmation from law enforcement that the incident has resulted in criminal charges or an active investigation. The local police have not released details on whether they were alerted to the situation, whether evidence has been collected, or how authorities plan to proceed. Without official reports or body-worn camera footage, understanding of the incident remains primarily shaped by clips circulated on social media and commentary from those involved.

The legal framework governing self-defence, vehicular assault, and livestreamed conduct raises complex questions about culpability and intent. If the individual was attempting to obstruct Peters' vehicle in a threatening manner, a defence argument might hinge on whether Peters reasonably believed he faced imminent harm. However, simply driving forward, particularly while broadcasting the act, could expose him to serious charges regardless of asserted fear. These ambiguities underline the fact that social media footage alone cannot substitute for thorough legal scrutiny.

Public Backlash and Broader Consequences

Public response has been sharply divided. Some commentators online defended Peters as reacting to harassment and potential physical threat. Others condemned his actions as reckless, dangerous, and indicative of a broader cultural shift in which real-world violence can be treated as spectacle for entertainment. Viral commentary threads reflect a fractious online discourse that mixes legal analysis, moral judgment, and meme culture in equal measure.

Clavicular's case remains dynamic and unresolved, with the potential to influence how digital platforms and legal systems address livestreamed incidents where personal safety, bystander risk, and content moderation intersect.

As investigations deepen and legal questions mount, the fallout from this livestream incident could reshape expectations of streamer responsibility and platform oversight.

Writer's pick