Slashdot Mirror
Columbine Video-Games Suit Dismissed
Dr_LHA writes: "This story on Yahoo! reports that the federal judge on Monday dismissed a lawsuit that claimed the influence of video games and movies where what caused the Columbine High School massacre. Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning, but good to see someone high up showing some sense."
This ruling will probably generate more anger in a handful of 'concerned' parents groups than all of the anger ever felt by teenagers playing GTA3, Quake, DooM etc.
One more scapegoat for bad parenting taken away.
Now lets work on the rest. All we have to do is wait for some money hungry family to start suing.
-------------------------------------------------
Hmmm... lets think really hard on this one. Kids go ballistic because they feel lonely. So kids build bombs and attain firearms, storing them in their parents' houses. The parents continue to watch TV and not care that the house smells like gunpowder. The parents continue to never go into the room with very blatant psychological cries of help plastered on walls, on paper, and on their computers. The parents appear shocked when interviewed, "We had no idea he wore a trenchcoat during the warm months to hide the shotgun. We thought he must of been cold"* Whatever this judge says, it still sounds like Videogames did something to these kids alright.
*Not a direct quote, just a summary.
I know it isn't popular but games and movies do influence people (including youth). Maybe most of us can tell the difference between a minigun and a minimart. Don't underestimate the power of suggestion on an individual who is under a pressure situation or lives in an environment without consequences
I wholeheartedly agree. Those parents are just trying to shift the focus of blame off of them, and onto something else, like media. It's a typical move. They portray the illusion that, somehow, society has failed them by not helping them raise their children. It's wrong, so very wrong.
There is nothing quite like the feeling of having 16-on-16 in a good CounterStrike game.
Another good thing about computer games, theyre multiplayer mostly now, so now they can make friends too with similar interests and that would also help in a way. So, I think its more of a positive thing than negative.
----- Whats wrong with this picture? http://www.revoh.org:1234/whatswrong
Parents.
Pretty much anything can influence someone, but it depends on how you were raised whether or not you're going to actually want to copy it or do something similar. When MOST people play a game like Doom, they would never ever even consider doing anything remotely close to that in real life. But some people don't have that type of conscious or morals(or ability to distinquish between reality and fiction), and when they see a movie or play a game and enjoy it, sometimes they go and do it themselves. It's possible they were influenced by it...it gave them an idea. That's all it takes when someone hasn't been raised right or fell off the wagon along the way for some other reason. But games/movies/music/etc are not to blame, the parents are. If the kid is going to be influenced by something like that, they shouldn't be playing/seeing/reading it in the first place.
It should also be noted that video games are a popular scape goat because they are relatively new. Books had the same problem back in the day. And most of you can probably remember all the hooplah when rap and the like became popular.
It's just like Itchy & Scratchy Industries president Roger Meyers Jr. said in that Simpsons episode...
Meyers: I did a little research and I discovered a startling thing... There was violence in the past, long before cartoons were invented.
Kent Brockman: I see. Fascinating.
Meyers: Yeah, and know something, Karl? The Crusades, for instance. Tremendous violence, many people killed, the darned thing went on for thirty years.
Kent Brockman: And this was before cartoons were invented?
Meyers: That's right, Kent.
Replace "cartoons" with "video games" and add a hearty "get bent" to the censors.
Amateurs discuss tactics. Professionals discuss logistics.
To you and I it's "Duh!" - but a wrongful death suit was filed. It's obvious that some people need to hear, in plain, unambiguous terms, "The killers are responsible, not the makers of Quake III or The Basketball Diaries!"
We want some answers and all that we get
Some kind of shit about a terrorist threat
- Ministry
I agree with your point, but not your example. See Legal Myths: The McDonald's "Hot Coffee" Case for more info. The basic deal is that McDonald's has been serving coffee at an arbitrary high temperature, knew that over the years there had been a number (~700) of injuries due to this, and did nothing to reduce the chance that these injuries would occur. So the question isn't really whether one coffee burn is cause for suit, it's whether a repeated pattern of coffee-related injuries constitutes reckless conduct on the part of McDonald's. Should spilling coffee in your lap make you feel stupid, damp, and very warm? Yes. Should it give you third-degree burns in three seconds? Considering that there's no advantage to serving coffee at that temperature, I would say no.
I agree with your point about personal responsibility, though - a video game doesn't make someone kill; if those kids were killers then it was because of something else that had already made them like that. Perhaps the fact that they could plan the whole thing in a parent's garage without the parent knowing is a good indication of where the problem may lie.
Your right to not believe: Americans United for Separation of Church and
gunmen Eric Harris, 18, and Dylan Klebold, 17, -- who were also killed during the massacre-- were avid fans of violent video games and the movie ``The Basketball Diaries.''
So, if it were discovered that the killers were fans of chocolate ice-cream should we sue Baskin Robbins?
Columbine was truely tragic, my heart goes out to the victims. However, being hurt does not automatically make one right. Nor does being a victim entitle one to blame and attack anyone remotely related to the crime.
In this case the families of those killed could not see justice done to the killers since they are already dead. The natural human urge is to get back and exact justice in attempt to compensate for suffering. Since the perpetrators of the crime were dead, a substitute had to be found. But, that doesn't make it right or just.
The judge said the two gunmen were the ones responsible for the teacher's death.
Thank God for a judge with common sense.
I see quite a few posts already saying that this decision helps to place the blame where it "belongs" -- on the parents.
But what about parents who do a good job? Parents who read Dr. Spock, have family dinners, spend a night a week with no TV but playing games and talking to their children, and yet STILL have children who grow up to be Charles Manson?
It's entirely possible that even the best parents in the world could have evil, maladjusted, sociopathic children.
We, as a society, are very quick to (1) Assume that someone "must" be responsible for anything that goes wrong, and (2) sue the crap out of whomever is currently assigned blame for #1.
For a while it was ADHD and Ritalin. It's often lousy teachers. Then it was rap music and/or video games. Sprinkled in there occasionally are parents, teachers, and school administrators (not to mention on-site security officers or the bus driver).
Hasn't anyone thought to blame the people who actually commit the crimes?
We as a society have to get used to the fact that you don't always know why, that there isn't always someone who has the power to stop things, and that we aren't always entitled to restitution.
Alright, everyone, repeat after me: "Shit happens."
So the question isn't really whether one coffee burn is cause for suit, it's whether a repeated pattern of coffee-related injuries constitutes reckless conduct on the part of McDonald's.
I dunno. It may be a legitimate question to ask, but I think the personal responsibility of the person involved should be a mitigating factor with regards to damages.
It would be one thing if the woman in question was sitting at a table in the restaurant, reading a newspaper, misjudged where the coffee was and spilled it into her lap. It is entirely another thing to have a cup of potentially-scalding hot coffee wedged between your legs while driving (and, frankly, if you aren't assuming that hot coffee can burn you, you are being stupid).
McDonalds was at fault for making their coffee so hot for no good reason; however, I think in this particular case the damages awarded to the woman were totally outrageous considering how negligent she was in the role she played.
C
There's no problem that cannot be solved with a suitable amount of high explosives
Many people simultaneously believe that:
1) Behaviour Can Be Learned
2) Video Games Can Be Educational
3) Video Games Cannot Teach Negative Behaviour
Does this belief make sense? Children take their cues from all aspects of life, including the games they play. No, I don't believe violent video games should be banned - but I believe they should be rated, and those ratings enforced. 18+ for games like Quake. "Let's see some ID kid. No? Well, I can't sell you this game - I'd risk a fine or revocation of my business licence."
The parent could still buy it for their child, but at least they'd be forced to accept their responsibility as a parent.
Columbine happened right smack in the middle of a time period when we are witnessing the breakdown of the basic family unit, and the collapse of parental responsibility.
Video games are not the direct cause, but neither are they unrelated or innocent. They are one contributing factor in the fabric of society.
Studies of bullying behavior are just now starting in the scientific community. One of the things that researchers are recognizing is that people who are abused tend to have *different* values for what is abuse and bad behavior - basically, someone who goes through abuse or neglect tends to "grow up" faster and not recognize abuse in themselves. That is one reason why children of abusive families tend to carry on the vicious cycle to their own kids; and it is also a key to how someone who is bullied in school (or maybe bullied at home and carries that to school) would resort to such mind-bogglingly violent options.
There needs to be more investment in counceling and positive reenforcement in schools - perhaps as early as elementary school. Yes, a significant number of people who read this site were probably bullied and ostracized when they were younger (I still have bad memories of a rather unfortunate day in 6th grade when I wore a yellow hair band that did not match the rest of my attire). Most people do not go home and gather up the dynamite and a few gallons of gasoline, but some individuals have different receptors for pain and abuse. This is just a prime reason of how environment can alter our brains at the *cellular* level - changing even how the DNA is transcribed.
"If the whole world depends on today's youth, I can't see the world lasting another 100 years." Socrates
Sure. I had been playing Halo all night and the next morning my fiance came into the room while the lights were out and i was half asleep. As my eyes opened at the noise, I saw her silhoetted(sp) in the doorway and she was walking torwards me. I jumped backwards (well, to the other side of the bed) and screamed.
So yeah, video games have an effect on me.
Luckily, I never had the urge to shoot her with my assault rifle, because:
1) i dont have the lucidity to grab an assault rifle while im half asleep
2) i dont keep an assault rifle in my bedroom
3) IM NOT A MALADJUSTED FUCKING MORON
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
About a new possible Bill in the State of Michigan regarding the sale and rental of video games that have violent content in them.
I am going to find out who this idiot is and ask him why he believes that parents are incapable of raising their children.
I was also going to point out that a law similiar to this was passed and then reveresed in court, in the city of Indianapolis recently.
Parents do not need additional laws that give them even more reason to shirk their duties in raising their children. If they do, then they really shouldn't be parents. Work a few less hours and frikkin' raise your children. I know that when I have children, I or my wife, whomever is making less, will stay home and raise the children.
Again, those children in Columbine, including most of the "Copy-cat" children, were all on some kind of psycotropic medication, had two parents that worked more hours than they spent with their kids and probably barely knew what their kids were doing, thinking or planning.
That never happened to me, because my parents were there. Sure, sometimes they seemed annoying, but for the most part, they spent time with me and my siblings. They took us places, explained the actual difference between right and wrong and helped us become the good citizens that we are today.
Today's children don't have parents, they have lax animal trainers that are barely there to feed and change, let alone train the children they bore. Get a grip people, stop supporting these silly laws and start supporting your children.
Another thing, your children are growing up. If you don't teach them about the REAL WORLD, then they are going to learn all the dangers on their own. If that means they get pregnant at 15, then that is really your fault for choosing not to talk to them about sex. If they end up whacked out on drugs, again, you should have talked to them about drugs.
My parents did that for me and yours may have done that for you. If you turned out okay and actually had parents there to raise you. What makes you think that your children will be okay without parents?
--
.sig seperator
--
If you ignore the other uses of a tool, does that make the tool less useful, or you less useful?
Actually, I believe that the founders intended all these rights to be equal in importance. They thought that you could do whatever you wanted, so long as you did not infringe on one of those rights. Oliver Wendell Holmes said it best: "You have the right to extend your arm, but your right to do that ends where my nose begins."
"Do I dare disturb the universe?"
You guys sound like this is a great topic to post your opinion on how its not video games and other media that got the "kids" to kill "kids" at Columbine. Whats the quickest way to get rid of something? Kill it. Right? Even with OSes killusr bla-bla. How do we know? Well first of all turn on that box that sits in front of your couch and click to a channel any channel? What do you see? Violence is OK. Those "kids" are dead and we won't see them again. Go look into a mirror and say that could have been me dead or me in jail. Parents need to take a stand and kids need to be heard. Flame me all you want, I just pray that you or your loved one does not get hurt next time some person in need of some type of attention gets the urge to commit some animal like action.
-Peace
It was. The jury awarded $200,000 in compensatory damages, but this amount was reduced to $160,000 because the jury also found that Liebeck was 20% at fault for the spill.
That's it? 20%?
I'd crank that up to at _least_ 33%, if not somewhere more in the vicinity of 40% or so.
It is, indeed. But that's not what this woman did. This woman wasn't even driving the goddamned car. She was a passenger. Her son was driving, and he stopped the car at her request so she could take the lid off the coffee and add cream and sugar. She held the coffee between her legs to pry the lid off, at which point it spilled.
I hereby lower my stupidity rating of this woman. However, that still doesn't change the fact that holding a hot beverage in a styrofoam/plastic cup between your legs, in such a manner as to make the liquid free and capable of pouring out of the cup, is not an amazingly bright idea. Hot liquids, flexible cups, and removing the one thing that is holding a flexible cup into its preferred shape, are things that do not mix well (typically, the cover on a cup of coffee is made of more rigid plastic than the cup itself, and therefore is more capable of keeping the cup in a cup-like form).
She was not driving. She was not holding the coffee between her legs while she was driving. The car was not even MOVING when this incident occurred.
See my statement above - it makes me feel slightly better about the intelligence of the average human, but only slightly.
Do you routinely assume that beverages served to you for your consumption are capable of inflicting full-thickness third-degree burns in 2-7 seconds should they touch your skin? I'm aware that I should treat my coffee as if it were a hot beverage, not as if it were hydrocholoric fucking acid.
Yes, frankly, I do. I assume that any hot liquid that is sold to me hot is, well, hot - at least until I can verify the temperature. I don't buy hot chocolate and then take a big gulp, because I don't know exactly how hot that hot chocolate really is.
Furthermore, if the coffee really was as hot as you indicate, then this woman should clearly have known - styrofoam (or plastic) might be a good insulator, but it ain't _that_ good. Unless she handed McDonalds an insulated mug to pour the coffee in, she should have been able to get some rough idea of the temperature of its contents. Hot coffee is bad enough to hold in a styrofoam or plastic cup when it's at a reasonably hot temperature - when it's capable of scalding like you describe, holding that cup ought to be _painful._
Don't even try to convince me that a plastic or styrofoam cup is capable of reducing the temperature of 185-degree coffee to something that doesn't trigger warning bells in the sensory nerves of the average human being.
Obvious to those of us who play GTA3 regularly but still manage to overcome the urge to plough over pedestrains on the way to work in the morning
[This isn't a troll, but it sure is going to sound like one.]
My brother has GTA3 (and ironically, he's also a cop). We've both played it and come to the same conclusion - it's just too damn violent.
Don't get me wrong - I do not think it should be censored. I just have to question what is going on in your head when it takes shit like GTA3 to entertain you. It's like watching an animated Faces of Death.
I enjoy games with violence as much as the next guy. Games like CounterStrike or HALO where violence is an effect of realistic gameplay, and it's not done in a gratuitous fashion. It's the pointless violence like beating old ladies to death in GTA3 that I find a little disturbing.
So tell me - what are you GTA fans thinking when you watch blood pool around a dead bystander's head in GTA3? Is it really necessary for the game to be THAT violent? How does it make the experience more enjoyable?
I sure hope it's not just me getting old, because I'm gonna get a hell of lot older than 24.