Are there independent videos or authenticated clips showing Hasan Piker mistreating his pet?

1. What the available clips show — the raw moment that sparked the debate

Multiple outlets point to a short clip from an October 7–12, 2025 livestream in which Piker tells Kaya to “settle” and appears to reach off‑camera, immediately followed by the dog yelping and lying down; that clip went viral on X/Twitter and Reddit and is the primary piece of evidence circulating online ^{[5] [6] [7]}.

2. Piker’s account and immediate responses

Hasan Piker publicly denied using a shock collar, saying the device on Kaya is a vibrating collar with an AirTag and that the yelp coincided with the dog’s paw hitting the bed frame; he removed the collar on a later stream to demonstrate its components, according to reporting ^{[2] [7]}.

3. Independent voices and expert commentary reported

PETA responded by urging review and noting the harms of shock collars if they were used, while at least one veterinarian and channels like CatalystVet have publicly criticized the on‑stream handling of Kaya and called electronic correction of normal movement problematic — these analyses have kept scrutiny alive even as Piker denies wrongdoing ^{[3] [4]}.

4. How commentators and rival streamers interpreted the footage

High‑profile streamers and online personalities quickly framed the clip through partisan and interpersonal lenses: some portrayed it as clear abuse or “gaslighting,” while others argued the evidence is thin and the outrage is politically motivated; that divergence has amplified the dispute beyond the short video itself ^{[1] [2] [8]}.

5. Claims about multiple “leaked” videos and their provenance

Some online figures claimed several additional clips surfaced showing Piker electrocuting Kaya; reporting cites those claims (for example, a former OTK member said seven videos were leaked), but mainstream coverage centers on the pivotal viral clip and on analyses of it rather than a verified trove of authenticated additional footage ^[5].

6. What the public record does not confirm

Available sources do not confirm forensic authentication that definitively proves an electric shock was applied, nor do they report a law‑enforcement or formal animal‑welfare agency finding that Piker used a shock collar; coverage documents claims, expert opinions, Piker’s denial, and PETA’s call for scrutiny but stops short of a conclusive independent proof in the articles summarized here ^{[3] [1] [4]}.

7. The broader context — streamer culture, camera angles and interpretation

Reporting underscores that livestreams produce fragmentary evidence: camera framing, off‑screen movement, and short clips can be interpreted in multiple ways. Some writers argue the clip lacks context and that Piker has many hours showing affectionate care; others point to professional standards that advise against aversive electronic correction — both perspectives appear in the record ^{[8] [4]}.

8. Practical takeaways for readers evaluating such claims

The journalistic record shows a short viral clip, competing interpretations, Piker’s direct denials and a later demonstration of the collar, plus calls for investigation from PETA and at least one veterinarian critique — readers should treat the clip as contested, seek primary footage and independent forensic or agency findings before drawing firm conclusions, and note that current mainstream reporting does not document an independent adjudication that the dog was electrocuted ^{[2] [3] [4]}.

Limitations: This analysis uses only the cited articles and cannot account for footage, social‑media posts, or formal investigations published outside these pieces; available sources do not settle whether an electrical shock was delivered ^{[1] [3] [4]}.