Video Games Share Blame in Florida Murder Case

EH writes "Yet another article making the case that video games force young children to ruthlessly bludgeon people to death. Or at least a South Florida lawyer thinks so. 'Whatever happened [in JoLynn's death], it was not murder,' Thompson wrote in a news release. 'The American video industry must share the blame.' Articles like this make me so angry." I'm really getting sick of video games being used as the scapegoat for the evils of society. It's not like Nintendo is blamed everytime an Italian becomes a plumber.

Comments

Obligatory Quote

[bobthemonkey13]

"Video games don't affect kids. If Pacman had affected us when we were kids, everyone would be running around in darkened rooms, munching on magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." -- Davey Whipwreck

(Is that the right source? I know I've seen it elsewhere attributed differently.)

well

[toddhunter]

he has me convinced ... ahem.
I think that lawyers do a lot more harm than video games ever could. After all, anyone can get away with murder these days because there will always be some souless bastard who will do whatever he/she can to get you off and get themselves more money.

"Wow, murder 1! Even if I loose I'll be famous!"

C'est~la~vie

[Masami Eiri]

Just have to deal with it. There's plenty of idiots out there that can't accept that violence is part of human nature, even more so in emotional times, and as such, blame it on media.

Before games, it was music, before that movies, before that certian books.

Of course, its also human nature to "pass the buck" or so it seems.

Video games don't force people to do anything

[PurpleFloyd]

Remember that videogames don't force you to do anything. Only someone who is deeply disturbed lacks the ability to differentiate between fantasy (like a computer or console game) and reality. This reminds me of the '80s worries over D&D "cults" that would supposedly do crazy stuff to people because it was in D&D. Not gonna happen, unless someone's fairly far out there already.

One other thing: I hear a lot about videogames training kids to be killers. Again, not gonna happen. While some videogame skills might transfer over to the real world, most don't. Nobody who plays Quake for 8 hours a day picks up any marksmanship skills at all, any more than playing Tetris prepares you for a job in mail-order packaging. Besides, anyone playing games obsessively will lack the physical fitness necessary in a combat environment. Videogames are for the most part designed to be unrealistic to a degree; apart from hardcore sim-heads, those kinds of games are seen as boring and don't sell. While small amounts of realism make a game fun (think Counterstrike), large amounts simply consist of players doing boring, repetitive things (just like in the real world). Games don't train anyone to be a killer.

Re:Video games don't force people to do anything

[Danse]

I could only hope that a Counterstrike player would try to shoot up the school. He'd probably miss most everyone since he doesn't have his trusty aimbot. Then he'd prolly bitch about the lag and call everyone fags. Once the guards show up, he'd complain that the teams are stacked. Then he'd run out into the open and start jumping like crazy while attempting to shoot the guards with his Deagle. Then, after the guards mow him down with bullets and he's laying there bleeding, he'll call them h4x0rs and inform them that he's gonna buy an AWP next time and 0wn them all!

So, you see? Game players shooting up schools and businesses would make things sooo much easier on law enforcement officers. Hell, if the cops can wallhack, the guy won't stand a chance. :)

Re:Video games don't force people to do anything

[kamapuaa]

Remember that videogames don't force you to do anything. Only someone who is deeply disturbed lacks the ability to differentiate between fantasy (like a computer or console game) and reality.

That's why the typical argument (I play video games, and I've never killed people) fails. Most people who are going to kill are deeply disturbed. The argument is whether the video games bring out latent homocidal tendencies. Culture can have negative effects on people's behavior.

An extreme example: people saw the movie "Birth of a Nation." The majority liked it for the spectacle and the new cinematic techniques. However, others siezed on the racist content, the KKK re-formed, and lynchings and increasingly racist laws happened. That's an extreme example just to prove the point that culture can directly have a negative effect.

Another example is music. A number of individuals were encouraged to try drugs by hippie culture, which was defined by music. A number of individuals consciously modeled themselves after gangsta stereotypes after hearing gangsta rap, and lived a lifestyle that just doesn't have a place in the Great Society. (Similarly, I've listened to "Sgt. Pepper's" and "Straight Outta Compton", but I've never shot a policeman on acid (me, not the cop))

On the opposite end, obviously a lot of culture really is harmless.

But I don't think it's unreasonable to question culture's ability to influence events - and if it's unhealthy, to restrict it.

Flame away :)

Re:Video games don't force people to do anything

[kreyg]

Not a flame, but I think a free and just society rests on two principles:

1. Presumption of innocence until proof of guilt
2. An individual is responsible for their own actions

Banning materials is a presumption of guilt - it denies them to those who would actually deal responsibly with them.

Blaming external forces rather than those taking the action absolves everyone of responsibility, as our actions are always motivated by outside forces.

The price of freedom is the risk that some will abuse freedom. If we really don't want it, let's just drop the pretense and welcome the dictatorship with open arms already.

People can't be crazy no more huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

It could never be a possibility that sickos seek out violent games to play because they *gasp* enjoy violence?[/sarcasm]

Idiocy

[Rysc]

I find it much more likely that Football will make players aggresive than video games. In one you dress up in armor and run at people with the intent to stop them. You can't say that a tackle isn't aggressive.

The other involes you staring intently at a screen and jabbing your fingers up and down. Maybe it's intense, but more like a roller coaster then armed combat... which is what football is designed to immitate.

Down with football! This devils-game is forcing our children to kill!

I say we get a new scapegoat...

[Daniel Wood]

SPAM!
Yes, blame it all on spam. The enticing ads told him to do it!
I think this is a bandwagon everyone can jump on. Now if only we could put the right spin on it!

Re:Violent video games don't kill people...

[Babbster]

Good points all.

Here's a quote from the article that I found significant:

"Mickey Mishne said his daughter had invited Lynch to stay at their home because she felt sorry for him."

First of all, why would a parent (either that of the girl OR the boy) let a teenaged boy and girl cohabitate? It's a recipe for uncomfortable situations at the least and teen pregnancy at the worst - admittedly, murder wouldn't have leapt into my head as a possibility.

Second, why did the girl feel sorry for him? Was it poor social skills, bad home environment or what? If it was the former, how would that translate to inviting the kid to be a "houseguest"? If it was the latter, wouldn't a call to child protective services (or whatever it's called in their area) be more appropriate?

Finally, I would note that the video game argument seems impossible to maintain here. This wasn't an act of revenge or similar like Columbine (where I still felt the relationship was bogus but maybe closer). This was an obviously disturbed individual who it sounds like entered a state of rage and acted out physically on that emotion - unfortunately, it happens all the time, even to full-grown adults who play ZERO video games.

The video game argument is being offered not in any attempt to help a young kid who may need psychiatric help. It's being offered in order to raise the profile of an attorney who has decided that he wants this to be his criminal defense niche. I expect that he'll propose this defense every time anyone under 30 commits a violent crime and has a history of playing video games.

Lawyers...Gotta love 'em.

What happened to assuming responsability?

[c.r.o.c.o]

I'm not that old, and yet I believe I should take responsability for my actions. I cannot stand the way the American society works in this respect.

"It's not my fault I have lung cancer, the tabacco companies should have told me smoking is harmfull"

"It's not my fault I'm a drug addict, the dealer gave me crack for free and didn't tell me it's addictive"

"It's not my fault I killed this person, I saw it all in Doom, I swear!"

And the examples could go on ad infinitum. The fault always lies with someone else. In the worst case, I'm partly to blame, a minute part, and should not be punished for it. This sort of behaviour has deep implications on out lives and freedoms. On one side we have the government and big corporations trying to impose more and more severe limitations on everything we do (think DMCA, Patriot Act, etc) just because they can. On the other we have irresponsible individuals that through their defences are curtailing our freedoms even further by casting an unfavourable light on harmless things (eg. computer games).

And the worst of it all is that nobody is forcing anybody to raise their standards in this respect. As geeks we become enraged in those instances, but do we really do anything about it? Do we have the power to do anything?

You tell me. Please.

Re:What happened to assuming responsability?

[Senjutsu]

"It's not my fault I got burned by this McDonald's coffee, nobody told me it was hot!"

This one usually gets cited and laughed at, but what folks don't know is that the coffee in question was actually OBSCENELY hot, beyond the point of being safe because McDonalds likes to cut corners and keep an old pot of coffee around as long as they can by overheating it. Plus the suit was only for medical damages (to cover extensive skin grafts needed, not just a 'Oh, that hurt!' whine) and the jury are the ones who decided to inflate that to millions of dollars in order to punish McDonalds.

This is an important point, because that case is so often used to decry the legal system, even though the people using it are almost totally ignorant of the facts.

She was a 79 year old woman in the passenger side of the car, who opened the lid of the coffee to add cream (while the car was stationary) and spilled it, causing third degree (full-thickness) burns to 6% of her body, mostly in the genital and groin regions. It was shown during the trial that McDonald's had recieved more than 700 complaints about the temperature of their coffee within the proceeding ten years, that it was served well above industry standard temperatures, and that it was served a full 40 to 50 degrees above safe temperatures. McDonalds claimed that they needed to serve it that hot because people don't drink it until they arrive at their destination, but during trial it was shown that they had performed studies indicating that the majority of people intended to consume it immediately after purchase. She also did not make "millions" off the case, as many claim; McDonalds settled the case with her, presumably for less than the $480,000 that the judge had reduced the jury's award to.

Ironically, well before it went to trial she had offered to settle her claim with them for $20,000 - but McDonald's refused.

Is desensitization real?

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

Has anyone reading this ever encountered real-life injury or violence after a lifetime of violent video games(*), and *not* been shocked?

Just wondering whether the theories hold up when measured against the experience of real people.

(*) or movies, or news shows, or crime dramas, etc. etc.

Had a thought

[Tyreth]

We know that in times past, gladiator sports were popular. We often look back on the idea of men fighting to the death as a bad thing, and find it abhorrent that people could stand by and watch. Same with executions in the middle ages.

Yet these computer games, we do exactly the same thing. Imagine 100 years from now if violence was removed from games. People will look back on the mindless violence we participate in in a similar way to how we perceive those who enjoyed gladiator sports.

Now you and I would argue that computer games don't accurately represent reality (but we're getting close), but more importantly we don't actually watch someone die - we just imagine it.

I think that violence is something inescapable, ultimately. Men (and I refer here to males, not mankind) love violence. In small or large doses. Most here have probably participated in fights with friends - wrestling, etc, in a show of strength. To me, I think that violence is an innate part of our nature - whether we participate in reality or in computer games.

I reason then, that computer games help reduce violence, not increase it. One can release their frustration in a less harmful manner through computer games. Without computer games, a person fosters thoughts of violence in their mind with no outlet.

Just a thought.

Oh really?

[IceFreak2000]

'Whatever happened [in JoLynn's death], it was not murder,'

Oh really? <sarcasm>What the hell was it then? A frag?</sarcasm>

Just because I played Super Mario x doesn't mean I go around jumping on other peoples pet turtles!

<soapbox>Murder is murder is murder. Unless you can honestly claim he was acting in self defense ("She was gonna get me with her BFG..."), then he committed murder and should be sentenced as such. Period. And IMHO, this lawyer should be struck off for trying to trivialise the actions of this person by insisting that videogames are to blame</soapbox>

Essay quote

[IceFreak2000]

I know I've already posted a comment on this story, but I just remembered something that's quite pertinant.

Remember Marilyn Mansons' essay about the blame he was being landed with over the Columbine incident? The last paragraph says everything...

I think that the National Rifle Association is far too powerful to take on, so most people choose Doom, The Basketball Diaries or yours truly. This kind of controversy does not help me sell records or tickets, and I wouldn't want it to. I'm a controversial artist, one who dares to have an opinion and bothers to create music and videos that challenge people's ideas in a world that is watered-down and hollow. In my work I examine the America we live in, and I've always tried to show people that the devil we blame our atrocities on is really just each one of us. So don't expect the end of the world to come one day out of the blue -- it's been happening every day for a long time.

I know he's a bit of a dickhead at times, but he does make a very good point. (And yes, I do realise this case has nothing to do with guns...)

You think this lawyer is a little whack...

[bmnc]

I recently attended a seminar by a distinguished academic on useability and frustration in computer programs, who also works in the industry. (Name withheld)

He noted at some point that videogames moved fast in their evolution of control systems, then he said something like videogames cause violence in "real life". -Nothing to special here is there...

He then said that "If there weren't computer games there wouldn't be child pornography".

I was as stunned as you probably are now. =0