Slashdot Mirror
Grand Theft Auto Led Teen to Kill
Varg Vikernes writes "FOXNews reports on a lawsuit that claims the video game 'Grand Theft Auto' led a teenager to shoot two police officers and a dispatcher to death in 2003, mirroring violent acts depicted in the popular game. 'What has happened in Alabama is that four companies participated in the training of Devin... to kill three men,' attorney Jack Thompson told The Tuscaloosa News, which reported the suit's filing. Thompson is also filing suit against Wal-Mart, Gamestop, Take-Two and Sony." Gamespot has coverage of this story as well. Thompson has made something of a career out of lawsuits of this nature.
When will it be "Parents irresponsible with how they raised their child leads to deaths"?
When will the blame be placed where it belongs, with the people who's job is to raise this child until he is old enough to support himself?
What the hell happened to being responsible for your own actions?
If I ever rob someone at an ATM I'll sue NBC because I saw someone on Law & Order do it once.
What the FUCK is wrong with this country?
Not a Twitter sockpuppet... but I wish I was.
And Super Mario Bros. made me eat magic mushrooms.
Oh, wait...
I don't get America.. "Violent video games cause kids to commit crimes, we should ban them." Yet every motherfucking person in the Bible belt owns at least one Gun. Perhaps the kid wouldn't have shot the cops if he couldn't have got access to a Gun.
Before you moderate me flamebait.. please bear in mind that around fifty eight thousand Americans are killed by guns every year. Yes, that's around eleven times as man as in 9/11 and that is EVERY year. Bush would do a better job of protecting americans by removing firearms than countering terroism. You're more likely to be killed by a pig than a terrorist - and your around a million times more likely to be killed by a gun than by Osma.
America needs to stop living in fear and start addressing the real threats to society - one of them being the gun culture.
Yours Sincerely,
AC
Alright, I get that seeing violence tends to make people more casual about it. But if you can't control yourself to the point that you go out and kill people, something is certainly happening that the lawyer isn't talking about.
I see that they are suing the stores that sold the kid the game (it was rated M, he wasn't 17). Anyone want to explain where the PARENTS are while this is happening? What about the movies he sees? What about REAL LIFE? I mean, this stuff really does happen, you can't just pretend it doesn't. Kids under 17 do watch the news.
I agree, it sucks. Kids are getting more and more exposed to violence, and it makes it harder for parents to control it. But the people who need to take responsibility for this are the parents and the kid himself.
Good thing the kid's parents had no part in this! Afterall, it's only their job to supervise their children, teach them right from wrong, and in general make them everything they are.
aqazaqa
...the exact date personal responsibility died?
I'm hanging out for the "War on Terror made me want to kill" expose.
Sweet now the media is teaching us if we have no defense we can blame it on video games. It's the teen version of "battered woman syndrome"
"Another case of parents not displaying proper parenting skills."
News at 11.
The blame has to be put on someone... why dig as deep as blaming the retailers that sold the games to this kid, instead of going straight to the source - the kid's homelife and relationship with parents.
[an error occured while processing this directive]
and it made me kill people!!!
There have always been ways to get stupid ideas of things to do, always, books, radio, tv. People need to take responsibility for their own actions. Yes the game prob gave the kid the "great idea", but he was probably a bad egg and would have done somethign simular in the long run.
Really, how difficult is it to acknowledge that for a human being to not be able to distingusih between reality and fantasy THAT THERE WAS SOMETHING FUNDAMENTALLY WRONG WITH SAID INDIVIDUAL IN THE FIRST PLACE?
Pac Man made me eat my father.
:(
I only had a few seconds before my power ran out, I didn't know what else to do
The suit announced Tuesday seeks damages from the game's manufacturers and two stores that allegedly sold it to Devin Thompson.
I can see the point of suing the manufacturers, but the stores? What did they do wrong?
Guy asked me for a quarter for a cup of coffee. So I bit him.
And I'm holding the companies responible for training me to eat yellow orbs, stack falling bricks, and jump on King Kupa's head. Those bastards have wrecked my morals.
I'm sure the parents did plenty of training too.
There's gotta be some emoticon for rolling your eyes.
-Teiresias
All those little kids who play "The Sims" will all grow up to be responsible and productive parents. All we have to do is wait a little and all that good "all controlling game influence" will affect the world positivly. That or the real problem is people who learn life lessons FROM A VIDEO GAME! I'm sorry but I love shooting cops in GTA: San Andreas, but I have never thought that it was anything other than fake. Maybe parents should learn to actually raise their kids rather than let TV, Video Games, and Schools do the job for them.
Just a boy doing unproffesional IT work that's way above his head.
We keep seeing a repeat of the same thread every 6 months, with nothing new to add. Whenever an interesting thread does come along, it's usually dominated by .
Finally, we can lay off the easy access to guns, apathetic education, parental neglect / abuse, drugs, low self-esteem, and a rampant culture of violence and consumerism... The real culprit here was a video game.
Luck favors the prepared, darling.
Yeah, this happened in my town...really unfortunate event. He killed two police officers and a dispatcher after finding a way to get the gun from the policemen's holster. Personally I don't think it was the videogames as much as he was probably strung out on some opiate at the time. Plus, most of the school teachers would atest that the kid had a mean streak.
"There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you do something we'd all love one another." --Frank Zappa
The upcoming trial about the kid who crucified his classmate.
"The Bible made me do it."
Oh wait, there will be no trial. After all, we know the Bible is incapable of any wrongdoing.
Surely this has happened before, but mainstream news will never get wind of it.
*eyes roll down the hallway*
[an error occured while processing this directive]
The stores messed up by allowing a minor to purchase the game, but suing Take Two Interactive? All they did was make a product. It's not their fault how it got distributed by their retailers.
Besides, as Marcus Brigstocke wrote:(Link includes groovy retro PacMan game).
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
Faux news reports on thousands of Iraqi families bringing lawsuits against the US government for sponsoring and developing PS2 war games and using these games to induce young US recruits for a glamarous battle in Iraq and soon to be Iran (TV schedules are already penned for an october suprise!!).
Inevitably, parents will buy this for their children, then complain about gaming companies when they notice little 10 year old jimmy is beating up hookers, forming gangs with other 10 year olds, and killing cops online.
Alcohol-related accidents kill people every day. I don't see anyone trying to put Budweiser or Anheuser-Busch out of business.
It seems rather odd that if video games influence poor decisions, it is the fault of the game manufacturer and/or distributor, but when people make bad decisions and drive when drunk, its just the fault of the person.
I love double standards.
Games have nothing to do with anything. It takes a certian mentality in order to kill and games just don't have the influence to alter someone's mentality. What ever happened to responsibility for your actions. Instead of banning violent games they should ban people from making dumbass excuses for the things that they do.
... " The devil made me do it " ????
Welcome to Alabama!
(Be careful not to step on the bullsh*t)
I think that Jack Thompson does this for his own personal fame rather than for the best interests of his client. If I were that teen, I would dump Jack Thompson NOW.
and by that I mean the legal system. I am certainly not the most liberal person, and believe in limiting access to Violent Games by a Rating system or some such idea.
In other Words, if the parents allow the teen to have the game, it is fine by me, even if I don't agree with it.
But the problem here is not in the game, it is either with the parents or the teen himself, even society. If he can't distinguish fantasy from reality, it is not the games fault (or the publishers /creators).
I do believe society has a responsibility to itself not to always push the blame on someone else - - i.e. some claim it is the fault of the game only, some say it is the parents fault only, etc. IMHO it is most likely a combination of factors, which end up feeding of one another to lead to a bad end, some one needs to step up and break the cycle, yes, but to blame the game is ridiculous.
Sorry if this was incoherent, bad week.
And Doom made me go to mars and fight creatures from hell...
and f1gp is why I won my first formula one title....
and...etc...etc...
Cruise TT
GTA taught me that shooting cops pretty much always results in a quick and violent death. He must have better cheat codes than I do.
I poisoned my brother and married his widow after I read Hamlet.
Because then I will have found my medium for global conquest.
Even if the video game DID give this kid the idea to slaughter somebody, that makes it OK...how??? Take some f'in responsibility.
Pacman teaches kids how to eat small pills and run around aimlessly listening to horrible electronic music.
We have secretly replaced these Slashdot mods' sense of humor with a rusty nail. Let's see if they notice!!
Strange this kind of thing never happen in EU ... (or I'm not informed). But why ?
The people being sued should countersue for the plaintiffs using frivolous lawsuits as a means of harassment. They should seek punitive damages a means of stopping these frivolous lawsuits.
Because of my obsession with computer games, I feel that darkness will lead to me being eating by a grue, I can keep my pets alive by feeding them monsters I've killed, my words are back by the power of nuclear weapons, and XYZZY is magic word that will transport me back to the dungeon.
I just have to figure out how to pronounce XYZZY.
In Soviet Russia, asses suck this joke.
What about a lawsuit against the parents of the kid for raising him to be a killer instead? Hey, if we're starting to blame people for his behaviour, shouldn't we sue the ones who had the most influence on him?
---- Take the Space Quiz!
This child is responsible for his own actions. Even if his stupid brain followed something he saw in GTA, it is still not GTA's fault. GTA is mature rated, not teen rated. Therefore, he should not have played the game. Neither the people who sold/bought the game for him, nor Rockstar Games is responsible for him blurring the vision between reality and video games. He is a moron, who now has to pay for his actions. Obviously, the job of the defence lawyer is to save his client. Hence, he will say anything that will let the child to get off, which I doubt that it will. It is the same with that kid and the depression drug that has been on the news. It is pure bollocks.
Do other countries have frivilous lawsuits of this sort, or is it primarily a US-only thing? The idea that you can get rich by suing someone, or that misfortune entitles you to not just fair compensation but riches, is one that I wish could be changed. As an example of how these suits affect me personally, I hate that my health insurance costs are so high; perhaps the costs aren't all due to malpractice suits, but they definitely make up a significant part of it.
One thought I've had as to how these suits could be curbed is to allow judges in civil cases to set a bond, similar to what is done in criminal cases. Since lawyers currently take any case based on the fact that they get a (large) percentage of the settlement, there is no cost to sue, and a huge cost to defend. The person bringing the suit would have to put up the bond, and they would get it back when the case was settled or went to jury. If the case was later thrown out by the judge then the bond would not be returned, and might even go to the defendent to help with legal costs. In cases where obvious harm was done the judge could set the bond very low, but for trivial suits this could become a disincentive for bringing the suit in the first case.
Does any other country do this? How do other countries prevent frivilous lawsuits?
JAMWiki Java-based Wiki engine
Why the hell wasn't he handcuffed?
Slashdot: News for Nerds, Stuff that matters only to them
"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music." - Marcus Brigstocke
I remember when legal used to mean lawful, now it means some kind of loophole. - Leo Kessler
try to lay some pipe for the Princess with my Donkey Kong, come here and let me hammer that a****, damn maybe I did have some magic mushrooms
..then so is suing priests, politicians, and Dr. Phil.
If I said the President of the United States taught me that solving problems with violence was appropriate, which is why I shot my next door neighbor, I'd be called a lunatic. But if I say video games made me do it, I'm just a victim?
Idiocies like this lawsuit make me want to start playing D&D again just so I can kick somebody's ass.
Now, where did I put that vorpal sword...
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
Here's the problem...
It is not the responsibility of the various entertainment providers to instill good sense into the people they are entertaining. That is the role of society in general and parents in particular.
Whenever a person commits a heinous act such as this, people look for an explanation. Rarely is the explanation they come up with logical... instead it's an emotional response.
What we should be asking is not "what did the kid see that influenced him to do this"? But rather, "why didn't the kid understand the difference between basic right and wrong behavior"? And "why didn't he understand the consequences of his actions"? A lack of knowing the difference between right and wrong and understanding consequences points the blame squarely at the parents and/or legal guardian of this kid.
Wait a second, FOXNews is reporting it. Nevermind then.
just because he got the idea of how exactly to do it from a game, doesn't mean he wouldn't have killed someone in a different way had he not played it.
seriously, games are to do stuff you can't/shouldn't do in real life (I prefer the fantasy/magic side myself, not the violent type, but whatever)
olde tyme equivilant: the sherlock homes book made me do it!!
By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
This sort of thing drives me nuts. People always try to blame something other than themselves. How many people out there have been serious God botherers and gone on to murder? Many more than have been affected by GTA I would say. So should we ban the Bible or other religious works? No? Why?
:-)
Only a simpleton would think that banning these games would have a slightest effect on the number of murders that happen every day in the US. What about guns? 11,000 deaths a year for a population of 260 million versus 60 a year in the UK with a population of 60 million. Nope, don't ban GTA or the Bible, it really won't help.
What will? *shrug* If I knew that I certainly wouldn't be hanging around here
"I have the attention span of a strobe lit goldfish, please get to the point quickly!"
Now I have the uncontrollable urge to drop nuclear weapons on large cities and repopulate the human race.
I mean really, is this guy that delusional to think that this argument holds water? Please, please tell me there is a court in this country that will promptly tell this guy to go to hell. Like I'm sure 20000 more people will say here; where the hell were the parents?
As a fun fact: A researcher once investigated the sexual behaviour of teens. He found that these kids obviously watched lots of porn movies, because of their tendency to perform facial cumshots.
Kids imitating games and movies during gameplay is, of course, pretty normal.
However, a kid that can't distinguish between gameplay and reality is obviously fucked up. Fucking up the kid is not caused by the movies or the games, but either by the kids genetics, or, more likely, by his peers or parents.
Alabama. Need we say more?
If you have to blame someone, you can't blame the goverment or the education system. You definitly can't blame his parent for his actions. You have to blame CANADA... It's always their fault.
Video games don't make people kill. People kill becuase they don't know right from wrong or because they cannot exercise self control. Think about that...they're broken people. They're sick.
A normal and healthy person will not be swayed by a game, tv show, book or movie to kill. One who has had traumatic experiences or who has delusions might be inspired to kill by a game. But, whats really at fault, the game or the disease?
I think that as with all things, the truth is grey, and the sleaze merchant has some responsibility for the effects of profiting on sleaze and the glorification of violence.
Noes, it steals our karma, precious...
Pong - Led me to a life as a professional tennis player
Pac Man - Responsible for my obesity
Paperboy - Caused me to lose my delivery job as a kid
Spy Hunter - Responsible for my reckless speeding
Monopoly - Caused me to found Microsoft
Leisure Suit Larry - Responsible for my herpes
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
Is the video games that mimic P2P Filesharing so if I get caught doing that I can call Mr. Thompson and use that as my defense.
... video games do
Robot Devil: Mwhahaha! 1/4 of my ridiculously circuitous plan is complete!
People are responsible for their own actions. You can't set a precedent stating that violence can't be shown in any form to the American public because it's unconstitional, fascist, and ridiculous considering how many millions have watched grand theft auto and not replicated it.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Next time brother kills brother, I hope that Cain and Abel are sued, along with anyone involved in the making of that very dirty book.
Know what I like about atheists? I've yet to meet one that believes God is on their side.
Back when I was a kid all we had was the devils music to make us go crazy and kill a bunch of people. You kids and your video games wouldn't know a subliminal message if it jumped out of your Xstations and slapped you. Why if we wanted to have an excuse for being loony tunes, we'd have to spin a record (a record!) backwards to find out how to act...and we liked it!
No battles to the death are recalled. Mumpsman can hit to attack and cause brainsmashing.
I can't believe he can seriously make this argument. I've played the same game and seen the same things in that game as this kid did. I have no desire to commit violent acts because of that.
What happened here is that an individual who was predisposed to violent behavior saw some other violent behavior and (perhaps) modeled it.
According to this guy's sick logic, we should not report crimes in the newspapers or on television because the details of those crimes will motivate other people to commit them. While it is true that people do copycat crimes, they do them because they are criminals, not because of what they saw.
Can't people just be fucking crazy anymore?
Guns don't kill anymore than video games or tv does. People kill people. Blaming a gun or the media is just a farce. If you kill someone then it was your decision to do so. Step up and take your punishment.
;)
Americans need to stop trying to keep up with their twisted vision of the American Dream(tm) and stay home and raise their kids. Give up having the second car and the summer vacations in Malibu and actually spend some time with your mate and the offspring that you've brought into the world.
Besides, if you've played GTA then you'll know that it's much more fun to kill people by running them over with a car (an ambulance is pretty good) or with a chainsaw.
I will say that GTA tickles the already existing spot in my brain that thinks it's fun to kill cops and whores and make things explode. I could see how it might encourage someone that is already mentally disturbed or doped out of their head to go off the deep end. I don't think this is the type of thing you can really protect against though. Watching someone trip and skin their knee could trigger a blood lust just as easily. We can't sanitize life to make it entirely safe. Doing so would render life pretty much pointless.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
Wow, I guess they really are behind the times in Alabama!
You must think in Russian.
actually moron it didnt. the kid pulled the gun out of a cops holster.
In most other countries, the loser of a law suit pays their own legal expenses AND the legal expenses of the winner. That's not the case in the US, where trial lawyers can play law suit lotto. You lose, doesn't cost anything to play again.
[Insert pithy quote here]
When a company actually loses one of these cases, then it will be news. But as of now, all of these the "GTA/Ozzy/Judas Priest made me do it" cases are losers, and the correct decision has been made.
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
"God told me to do it"
;))
More injustice has been done against man in the name of their particular God's name than for any other reason.
Who's up for campaigning to get all religious literature removed from the shelves? No-one? Thought so.
I took a look at the bible, and it's full of people being murdered in Gods name. Why, that whole book is just a training manual for murder and carnage. Covetting thy neighbours ox? Smite him down!
(hey, who's up for registering and copyrighting WWE-Smite-down.com before anyone else does?
Serial killer to police: "God told me do it". "I was doing Gods work".
etc
He could have said that "life is like a box of chocolates" before shooting the officer - would Cadbury's be in the dock?
Just a few random stupid thoughts in response to a stupid lawsuit.
I played Super Mario Sunshine http://www.supermariosunshine.com/ and that didn't make me want to clean my room....or stop urinating in the public pools.
While I completely agree GTA played no part in this. I do have a question.
What kind of Police Station/Officers let a criminal they just arrested have access to a gun! I would think this would be one of those things they think through. Isn't this something covered in Police 101. When arresting individual, don't allow easy access to your freaking gun! He is a 18 year old kid. You are three trained police officers. Even if he got the gun, you have to think he is nervous and scared yet was able to get off at least three fatal shots. What were these cops doing?
Where our legal system would throw that crap out of court faster than you can blink an eye.
Does the media control our minds?
Here we have the eternal question. Does TV/Radio/Video Games/Books control us? Can a video game make us do things?
We acknowledge that free speech is essential to a free society. But on the other hand we place many, many limits on that speech. Some apply to words you speak, or write (on paper or the internet), such as threats to other people (most famously, the President), but also just old fashioned false advertising, libel, slander, fire in a crowded theater, and so forth. Furthermore free expression is limited by a variety of standards of "obscenity" - for instance you still cannot reliably express yourself with nudity in many places throughout the country.
The more powerful the media, the harsher the rules. Television has a mountain of rules governing what broadcasters can say or do, even since the recent elimination of some of the more famous ones (Fairness Doctrine etc). Janet Jackson can expose her breast on a New York street corner, but not during the halftime show. But of course there is a constant struggle for artistic freedom and in general our society tolerates more every decade than it did the decade before.
We made rules because we were afraid of the "power" of the mass media. News stories about kids "doing what TV tells them" have traction because we instinctively believe that they must be true. Well, we know that we aren't automatons controlled by the media, are we?
Of course, there's the advertising industry. This is a giant industry. There is academic rhetoric about information and capitalism, but the business doesn't sell itself that way. Read their trade magazines. They are literally and unabashedly selling behavior.
Maybe it's just not cut and dried. We are influenced by our interaction with the box in the corner of the room - not quite in the same way we are influenced by our interactions with people, and yet not for nothing, either.
The lesson of history in the U.S. and the world seems to be that we think freedom is great in principle, and in practice we vote against it as often as not. We have a number of double-standards. When little Johnny or little Jane's safety or sexual habits are at stake, we are often ready, as a society, to clamp down. And yet when political "news" equivalent to false advertising or propaganda is up for debate, we are often much more resistent to consider rules. Yet if you look to the Middle East, Russia or China, you can see that propaganda is dangerous too. Who knows which is more "dangerous" even, in the end? Europe is incredibly tolerant of nudity on TV, and they haven't degenerated into anarchy yet.
Myself, I would advocate bringing back things like the Fairness Doctrine, since as long as the ordinary citizen's access to the forum of telivision is so limited it seems that we need to be careful not to allow unpopular views to be effectively censored there. Whereas I'm more European in sensibilities terms of censoring things on the basis of sexual content. I suppose this means I buy into the notion that mass media influences us too.
Well, this is a long digression. All I'm really trying to get into here is that we're inconsistent when we think about these things, and as an exercise we should be more consistent. Here's a question. What sense does it make to restrict or ban Grand Theft Auto, and not the Godfather movies that inspired it?
Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
No kidding. That gun just pointed itself and pulled the trigger on its own. I bet the poor kid was trying to stop it but the gun was just too powerful. I feel sorry for the kid... the gun just took over.
Why must we blame inanimate objects when people make decisions to use them in inappropriate ways? Surely it must be something or someone else's fault (a video game, a gun, a bottle of booze, a video game store/manufacturer, a bartender, etc) because there's no way that a person could actually be responsible for their own actions. And then you pile on top of that greedy scumbag lawyers who get dollar signs in their eyes anytime they see an opportunity to get in on a high dollar lawsuit. Someone asked why they aren't going after the parents for not raising their kid better or (gasp) just the kid himself... because there's no money to be made there!! The kid's parents aren't going to line the scumbag lawyer's pockets with a double layer of dead presidents, but a company who will settle out of court to avoid having their name dragged through the mud will!
The inventor of "shooting cops" died long ago. Everyone since that innovation has learned how to do it from someone else, usually TV, and now videogames. GTA is especially persuasive, but we all know not to kill - though some of us do it anyway. The killer here is responsible for their actions, unless they're not - in which case someone else is, like their parents. Send their parents to the chair!
--
make install -not war
Ever since playing NBA Live 2004 i've developed a "wicked jump shot" and a "killer crossover!"
I don't keep a lid on my coffee so when I walk around I look busy -me
GTA is an excellent title. You can play GTA all day and work off alot of real world agression.
It's time people took responsability for their own actions. And stop blaming others.
Personally I attribute many people still having their lives because GTA offered me an outlet to go on mad killing sprees and freed me from the need to pop into a 7-11 and start blasting.
I think his parents should have taken more of an interest in his hobbies. Had they done that then perhaps this never would have happened.
Now for the flames to come in. I have a 7 year old child, whom I play GTA: San Andreas with on a regular basis. True it has violent content, but it also teaches. It shows her that each action in the game has a consequence. Steal a car, you are arrested. Kill someone, police chase you and you are most likely killed. It also gives me the opportunity to teach her morality and values she can use in the real world but in a virtual setting. Walking down the street she shoots someone at random, I ask her why she just shot that person. She then explains, that "they told me to get out of their way", I tell her that it's not right to take that course of action and ask why she didn't just walk away, she replies it's just a game, then I ask what she would do on the street in real life if it happened, she replies, I don't know. Then I can offer her other solutions other than a mad killing spree. You can bitch at me for letting her play this game say it's morally wrong, but fact is it's a game, and she plays with my supervision, she isn't allowed to play on her own. I take an interest in what she does, and what she is learning. You would be afraid of what you child is learning outside of your reach and away from you. Through this game I have found a way to probe her mind and find out what she is learning from others, and attempt to correct that which I see is wrong.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
I'm Christian, and I am a hardcore gamer. I enjoyed GTA1,2,3d and Vice City. But when I stopped to ponder the goal of the game, its to role-play someone evil. Now I know I'm not out actually killing people and doing harm, but in my heart I'm trying to win the game. But when you asssociate with the character thinking he's right, which you always want to do with a hero character in a movie(same holds true for watching horror movies with a main character that kills everyone) or book.
As much as I want to, I didn't play GTA:San Andreas. I simply think its something I don't want to do. Its like rap too, with negative stereotypes toward blacks(demeaning towards women,praise about guns, drugs, excessive use of curse words). I was into rap for a while, thinking its a good way to bring people together... But they people they're brining together...
I'm not suprised at a GTA player killing people. Or a quake person going on columbine. Or a columbine obsessed person killing people at a mall. Nor am I suprised at someone who obsesses over Friday the thirteeth to go out on a rampage either. Some people make horrific icons their heros. Then they want to be like them. So they'll try and come off all dark and evil. But if people just make fun of them, they'll take it one step further and take out the act to show they're really like their hero.
Its all in whats in your heart. People's desires and values are what make us human.
God spoke to me.
Thompson is accused of killing the three men in June 2003 after being brought to the Fayette police station on suspicion of driving a stolen car. Thompson allegedly grabbed one of the officer's guns, shot him and the other two, then fled in a patrol car.
So this never would have happened if those police officers didn't have easy access to guns, right?
Right.
"I worked hard for it. I deserve it. And I have it," Campbell said. "It's all mine."
How the hell he got the gun is beyond me though... did they have him handcuffed??
AC comments get piped to
"Thompson has made something of a career out of lawsuits of this nature."
Perhaps someone could do this guy a big favor and help to prove his point by giving him the Clockwork Orange treatment.
Adherence to the truth is a form of disloyalty.
2005 - 'Grand Theft Auto' Led Teen to Kill 1994 - Beavis and Buthead make kids burn down home. We need to remove this from TV. 1990 - Simpsons TV show make children disrespectful, we need to ban the Simpsons. 1985 - Ozzie Osborne's music makes teen commit suicide. We need to ban Heavy Medal music. 1979 - KISS 1974 - Alice Cooper 1967 - The Beadles 1955 - Elvis You get my point. Same story, different decade. It's not the celebrity/object/game causing the bad behavior. It is the person. This argument also applies to guns. It's not the gun, it's the person.
Yupp, sure do. I kinda hoped he wouldn't have Internet access where he is, but it seems like hope is lost.
While this story seems to suprise you guys, it doesn't surprise me in the least, because I live in Alabama, and trial lawyers are incredibly powerful here. It's no mistake that Alabama has been called "Tort Hell". It's very easy to sue here. What's worse, it's very easy to cherry pick the venue that you think will likely get you a victory in court here. And we've had some whoppers here. The University of Alabama in particular seems to just turn out ambulance chasers like there's no tomorrow. And these guys have tremendous pull in the state legistlature, where an overwhelming number of officials have law degrees. This state has always had the reputation of one where all the money is made behind closed doors, usually with lots of lawyers present. We're trying to change that with tort reform, but it's hard when they're so entrenched here.
Not to defend the GTA games, because they ARE disgusting. Let's face it...the gameplay rewards sadistic behavior. The more cops you run over, the more points you get. The game may have given this guy ideas, but realistically, he was probably open to criminal behavior anyway. If he's an adult, it's his responsibility.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
Personal Story.
When I was young, I had games such as Operation Wolf, Rambo, Commando, Green Beret, Ikari Warriors and the like.
After one day playing all these games, I decided I had to singlehandedly invade a foreign country. So I recorded the game music to a cassette, popped it into my walkman, and made my way to the local park (well, a foreign country was a long way away). There I smeared my face with mud, and went on a shooting spree.
I've only been recently released from prison, but now I can tell my tale of how video games can turn you from a nice normal person with access to guns with fighting parents who ignore you, living in a trailer park with no friends, into a killer!
While I'm not saying that GTA made this kid kill, or that the game is responsible for his actions, we need to be aware that the things that we put into our mind DO shape us and impact our personalities, whether we intend for them to or not. Have you ever memorized a song without consciously being aware of learning the lyrics? Also take into account that if advertising wasn't so effective, then billions of dollars wouldn't be spent on it every year. And, if a 30 second spot on TV or the Radio can sell you on a product, what can hours upon hours of immersive gameplay sell you on? A lifestlye? Something to think about.
Whats a good name for this one?
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
What entertainment value vs. educational value does a game solicited towards minors which promotes violence against authority figures have? Would the concept of having students entertaining with video games which promotes or otherwise displays strong violence, listen to music on over the air radio broadcasts which promotes or otherwise condones violence, watch TV programs which promotes, displays, and or condones violence in various fashions and physical degrees? Would the consideration of programs on HBO, or various urban rap songs, lyrics and artists which promotes prison has the gangsters paradise be any consideration in the proliferation of violence in students minds?
Would the thoughts of the freedoms we enjoy come back and haunt us? Ever?
Would a society where its children drink two or three soda's a day, eat a hamburgers several times a week, watch various degrees of violence on TV, listen to on radio or music with phrases like "pimp my ho" and "nasty bitchs" and other choice "Ghetto is good"(TM) phrases, or entertains via internet or games with violence the only option, be destined for self destruction?
I'm sure I will be attacked as a troll or zealot or religious fanatic or something of that sort, doesn't matter. What does matter is the simple thought of society training children and students with everything they don't need for a healthy life style. You teach your children to talk through example. You teach your children to dress, act, and interact through example. Why cant a teenager wait to drive, cause he wants what has been around his set as an example.
Same thoughts apply to violence. Everything is set through example.
http://www.freebsd.org
If video games really are causing teens to do bad things, then they should be making more useful video games.
Here are some ideas:
- Congress Tournament 2005
- Global Warming 3: Icecap commeth
- Stomp the President!
- Bible Belt Royal Rumble
- CorruptionQuest
Blame your sorry ass parenting skills and not a video game, or a tv show or a movie on these kinds of incidents. I am truly sick and tired of people whining about this bullshit argument. Look at other cultures around the world and how violent their television shows are (ummm Japanimation!) and then look at the discipline their children show. Just because you parents can't put forth enough of an effort to control your children don't try and pawn the blame off on those who should remain blameless.
News Reporters Make Tasty Polar Bear Treats!
I am personally more worried about the recent surge of war-themed (as if all the others didnt have to do with killing, but i mean real wars) games. There are plenty of WW2-themed games and, frankly, I enjoyed playing most of them immensely. But recently more and more games have been created based on wars still fresh in some people's memory. Vietnam, first Iraq war, current Iraq war. I, personally, have trouble being strongly anti-war and playing a game in which i run around killing vaguely masked people in arabic-themed cities. I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's alot more disturbing when we make violent games to purposely glorify the massacres we commit in life, than when we make violent games out of childish glee for bloody gibs. You don't see parents suing companies because their children played a video game and then joined the army.
What ever happend to "Crazy"?
I knew a woman who got injured on the job, so she sued her employer and won. After she got a little scratch from that, she started suing everyone in existance. Fortunately, none of the other lawsuits ever panned out.
It's no wonder that the lawsuit is in Alabama. I don't think there's a restriction on how much a lawsuit's payout can be there.
I have never fired a gun at another person and I sure as hell hope I never will. I keep my guns - all 17 of them, btw - unloaded and locked in a combination safe. But the governemnt has NO goddamn business imposing any restrictions on my rights, especially based on what I might do. In terms of personal liberties and restricted government, I am very much a libertarian.
I believe in equity between all people, regardless of race, creed, religion, sexuality, or gender. I protest against social injustice and volunteer my time and professional services (IAAL) for those in need. I am a very reasonable, forward-thinking, and fairly intelligent individual. However, when people start clamoring for the government of the United States to start behaving like Hitler's Gestapo, then I take offence. While it's cliched to say so, the government will take my guns out of my cold dead hands.
Since 9/11 enough of our rights have been curtailed. Without the second ammendment, the constitution is just another piece of paper. The second is the only guarantee we have for the all of the other ammendments. Without it, none of the others are worth squat.
YOURS sincerely right back,
AC
my fiancee's family lives in Tuscaloosa. Anyone who has ever been there will realize that Tuscaloosa and the remainder of Alabama (with the notable exception of Mobile) is the armpit of the south.
No wonder he driven to kill -- he lives in Alabama.
[move
This story seems straight out of last week's Law and Order: SVU.
Andrew Beard
// Dumps core here
If the guy did it because of the game, then make him pay for what he did, and make sure he doesn't play that game every again. That's it.
Don't EVERY try to take MY freedom to play games I like because of some isolated morron with personnal problems. Blame the game all you want in this case, but don't blame the game for things that did not and will not happen.
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
A teen's parents are suing attorney Jack Thompson and The Tuscaloosa News for blatantly publicising a story where a teenager shot two police officers and a dispatcher to death in 2003. After reading this story, their son Billy went out and did the same in their small sleepy town.
http://bike.stu.ph/rides - free GPS routes available for Garmin, Magellan, GPX and Google Earth
"TUSCALOOSA, Ala. -- A lawsuit claims the video game "Grand Theft Auto (search)" led a teenager to shoot two police officers and a dispatcher to death in 2003, mirroring violent acts depicted in the popular game."
Clicking (search) takes you straight to a page where you can buy the game in question.
I wonder if that makes Fox News accomplices in this as a result? After all, they may be participating in the "training of the next killer".
Perhaps I should call those nice attorneys for the plaintiff and tip them off, after all Fox has deeper pockets than Rockstar I'd imagine.
Just continuing the ridiculous vein I started on below.
RTFA. He took a cops gun.
I stole this sig.
Because I played this game, all I want to do is pick up random women and have sex with them.
er... actually, it's a toss up between the video game and my XY genetic make up.
Get me a lawyer, I need to sue someone.
Live forever, or die trying.
OK...I need to rant. Karma be damned.
/rant off/
MacDonald's & Burger King make them fat...
Subway tries to make them thin again but in vain...
Your clothing companies dictate that your kids need to starve to fit in to their jeans...
ABC, Fox NEWS & NBC make sure they have no knoweledge of the outside world at all...
The RIAA & MPAA makes sure it's not the artist's talent that matters, but mass-produced "flavor of the month" rubbish...
M$ is trying to "dumb" down the computer population...
Everyone wants to make money off "everyone else"...
but what everyone does not get is...
YOU ARE THE "EVERYONE ELSE" TO THE OTHER PERSON!!!
It's pretty pathetic actually.
Find a job you like and you will never work a day in your life.
Unfortunately the reason this is happening is because the lawyers need to get paid. Lawyers always look to cast the widest net with the deepest pockets. The issue of whether or not the video game caused this or the lack of parenting becomes a blurred issue and it's all focused on getting paid from companies with deep pockets.
Browse the Information Directory
"Consequences, Schmonsequences, as long as I'm rich." -- Looney Tunes, Ali Baba Bunny (1957, Chuck Jones)
I never knew Bugs was a lawer...
Help children born unable to swallow - www.tofs.org.uk
And where in GTA can I kill a dispatcher? I don't remember that one.
I think that personal responsability is actually the most important aspect of this article, but other /.ers have that covered. The next most important is that having easy access to guns can make a major catastrophy out of a minor crime.
I was born in the UK and live in Italy. The way security is handled here in Italy seems to be much the same as in the US.
In England banks are protected by bullet proof glass, security shutters and silent alarms. The bank that I use here in Bergamo has only one form of security - a policeman with a gun. If I really want to rob a bank here I don't need to be clever and I don't need access to a gun, the bank supplies that for me. One quick knife in the back and I'm armed, loaded and without anything else to stop me from walking away with all the Euros in the bank.
Where guns are used as the only form of protection they also become a major tool for crime. I don't believe that equiping every police officer with a gun makes the streets any safer, even if every officer is 100% trustworthy.
If Clippy sends me into a violent rage, can I sue Microsoft?
There is no reasonable defense against an idiot with an agenda
:wq
The kid stole the gun from the police officer.
Bill Clinton: Pimp we can believe in. - The Shirt!!!
In other news, I find the topic of the affect of a game on a person's actions to be a rather interesting one. First, as a job I help develop training software... simulations that teach people how to act in real-world simulations, so obviously we have faith, to some extent that exposing someone to extensive game-play will lead them to have the ability to do what they did in the game. The big question is not will it give you the ability to, or the desire to, but rather will it cause you to have an urge to do it that you can't resist... I say no.
On another note, I barely missed having an accident last weekend, and had I not played a lot of driving games on video game systems I am not sure I would have been able to react in time and in such a way to avoid a collision (some guy hit the guy in front of him, then started to slide over in my lane directly in front of me). I could be wrong, but I would think that games would train you to react appropriately in situations that you have little time to plan a reaction. More or less a reflex perhaps. But still, I don't feel this forces someone to go out and commit murder (or any other crime).
Some like to point out that video games give the player the same thrill. Firing a weapon and even 'killing' with no consequence. They marvel at how interesting it is that many kids have the same ability to fire several hundred rounds, without even thinking. This is what soldiers are trained to do, and the video games seem to give children that same ability.
The problem with this is two fold. First, if a child knows how to fire a weapon, they likely did not learn it from a video game. Guns tend to be heavy and have a quite different feel from a joystick or even gun mockup. If a child can go into a school have the dexterity and stamina to fire off a few hundred rounds, and in the process take out a dozen or so people, it is likely because they have experience doing so with a real weapon, not a joystick. It really is the case that bowling will more likely develop the strength to fire a gun than a video game.
Second, there were a fair number of soldier during WWI that were happy to kill the enemy at point blank range. There are a fair number of common of criminals on the street today that are willing to kill a person at point blank range for their tennis shoes. There are a fair number of people that will doom hundreds of families to starvation to satisfy a personal lust for stuff.
Taken together this tells us that for many people regard for human life and suffering is non existent. These kids and adult are just looking for an excuse to kill and main and steal. Any excuse will do and trying to rid the world of excuses is not a useful endeavor. It is much more useful to identify these miscreants and enemies of civilization and attempt to put them to useful work, such as the CEO of a corporations, or isolate them.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
There is a big hole in this kid's story, he didn't kill any Haitians! At one point in the game, GTA clearly says, "KILL ALL THE HAITIANS."
(There was a Slashdot article awhile back about the Haitians being angry about this)
Adidas To Bring Back Sneakernet
Obviously the child is under 18, and as such is not responsible for his own actions to some certain extent. I suspect video games of this nature have warnings for parentals to read how the game might contain violence, or explitives. IF the parent purchasd the game, they are liable for exposing their psycho kid to an inappropriate video game.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
Did he buy the same game from both stores? Did the employees of both conspire in his shadowy, smoke-filled basement to have him kill these people?
I, for one, am tired of companies conspiring to turn me into a murderer. It started with Applebee's, and now it's infected our beloved game stores.
i have met him before. he also spearheaded the attacks against id software, etc when the columbine shootings happened. i don't remember if he lost the case or if it was simply thrown out by a judge. my father is a pastor in miami, and he began attacking him as well. i don't know what he was trying to prove, he didn't seem to have a point. he never filed actual charges (for obvious reasons) but went over his head, and was shut down pretty cuick. in any case, there is an informal restraining order against him contacting my dad, anyone at the church he preaches at, or even visiting the church. he caused my dad a lot of stress for a while, but then my dad started ignoring him and he got bored and left. he's really a quack. not long after columbine he spoke at my school (i was in middle or high school at the time), his speech included a lot of graphic imagery, but no real content. i think the only thing anyone remembers from the speech is when he said that the columbine attackers had video of snuff porn on their computers (he got really graphic and described women being raped with shovels, then being shot to death) i don't know what that was meant to prove, but in my mind it proved that these kids had pretty messed up lives before doom.
-- lol pwned
i remember the good old days before video games were invented when all children were perfect. :/
Get Virtual.
The kid stole the cop's gun to shoot the 3 cops.
Just to expand on your point: a number of violent crimes (assault, battery) are committed by drunk people, especially domestic crimes (spousal and child abuse).
"Alcohol is associated with a substantial proportion of human violence, and perpetrators are often under the influence of alcohol." -- Eighth Special Report to the U.S. Congress on Alcohol and Health
So, it's no secret that alcohol can be abused to the detriment of society. But, the counterargument is this: most people who consume alcohol commit no crimes at all. Thus, alcohol does not cause violence, it simply makes violent people more violent.
This applies equally to movies, video games, rock/rap music and other targets of these self-proclaimed "moralists."
This kid was already violent. And mort importantly: one out of millions does not prove causation between GTA and violence.
Having said that, I wonder where games like the GTA series have in our society? I am honestly asking: what is the appeal of these games? We've had games before were you're the hero defeating "the enemy" (whether it's in Wolfenstein, Doom, etc.), and I don't have a problem with that. My question revolves around games where the object is to steal/kill innocent people. You have to admit that something like that could influence someone's behaviour.
I bring this up becuase, back in university, I did research on how porn videos affect male sexual response, and there were some men who wanted to "do it like that bitch in" whatever movie, and their sexual response was based on what they saw in the videos (the feeling that this was "normal" behaviour). This was documented research by a scientific study. So, it cannot be denied that whatever a person interacts themselves with can have an effect on their behaviour.
So, I am asking what is the appeal of these games?
Oh, and before anybody asks: yes, I've tried playing GTA, but couldn't get into it.
It is not our abilities that show what we truly are... it is our choices.
If I get fat, it's McDonald's fault. Sue them!
If I kill someone, it's GTA's fault. Sue them too!
If I get in a car accident, it's Ford's fault. Yep, sue them!
The guy is obviously a right wing hatchetman, the left have them, and this is the rights. Its shown time and again he has no problem smashing freedom of expression if it involves a curse word.
So why again are we giving him a speakerbox here?
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
RTFA. It was a cop's gun that was used in the murders.
WHERE WERE THE PARENTS IN ALL THIS? The parents are the ones who should be in court, not a bunch of software developers and retail stores, these suits are way out of hand... When is the government responsible for raising children, why aren't his parents held to task? Doesn't anyone ask the appropriate questions anymore?
Too bad the companies don't have the balls to man up and file a suit against the parents claiming negligence and failure to provide support and discipline necessary to raise respectful, honest children.
I wish someone with no sense of personal responsibility would shoot that fuckin' lawyer UT2000 Style "Headshot" then claim that the combination of ranting from the lawyer, and the videogame made his dog talk to God and tell him to do it!
I'm sick of everyone fobbing the consequences of their actions off on some third party (The drunk driver in the recently announced 21M dollar victory against a beer vending company at a stadium: I didn't hurt that kid when I sideswiped their vehicle, it was the vendor's fault for allowing me to go to different vending stands and buy beer," the owners of Ford Explorer SUV's that flip over: "It's not my fault my family's dead, just because I bought a light-duty truck, overloaded it, didn't like the ride so decreased the air pressure to under the stated minimum -- nope, it's the tire company's fault, and Ford!".) It's time these whining pukes started sucking it up, and taking responsibility. To quote Jeff Foxworthy (will this rant, or quoting Jeff be what get's me modded into oblivion again?) "Just once, I'd like to hear someone go on Operah and tell the truth. Nope, My mom was great, my dad was great, I had a wonderful childhood -- I'm just a shithead."
People need to either quit complaining about government intervention in every little facet of their lives, or start taking responsibility for every action. To do, or claim to want, anything less is pure and unadulterated hipocrysy. It's also showing the lack of personal responsibility that we've created in generations with the "Self esteem is the be-all end-all, no child must be told 'you are doing wrong' but must be told 'you are doing something unique and special.'" We are reaping what's been sown over the past 30 years of emotional based (verses facts based) living, child-rearing, discipline, and education
I think it's about time we made a game where the primary & secondary ( why not... ) objective was to kill lawyers.
I should patent this, It would probably sell a billion copies.
No seriously, why not make this game?
For every lawyer that was murdered... 100 more lawyers would get richer prosecuting the case, even defending it...
Hell, it would probably enrage more people to kill lawyers... thus more lawsuits...
How dynamic...
Please... I don't act out what i see in games, because I only play FPS against aliens... ( and there are no aliens around to kill )
Lawyers, like this guy, are in the same category as the game itself... they both get popularity and riches because of shock value.
If nobody was outraged ( by this type of game ) or ( by the lawyers who sue game companies for the actions of game players ) then both the lawyers and game makers would both be rather poor.
Just remember who "wins" in the end... the lawyer... no matter what happens ( win or lose the case ) -he still gets a paycheck.
lordcontrary
Remember the good ol days before grand theft auto. No body ever killed anyone and people certainly never would have stolen from someone else. Horrible game companies.. Oh yea and how did this kid get a gun? Interesting.
"Honestly, officer. Grand Theft Auto is the reason I was getting head from a hooker in the back seat of my car."
Hell, I guess I'm behind the times. I'm still into shooting centipedes (and sometimes mushrooms when they get in the way).
Since when is FOX a valid source of news? And used as such by Slashdot?
Fox shows only the view of this confused attorney and does not mention that linking video games to violence is highly debated and still inconclusive.
Is Fox not making more propaganda in the family-value-and-fear style we have come to know them for?
This is something we don't really have good stats for (that I know of), and it would be nice.
My "gut" feeling is that few of these kinds of suits actually succeed, and those that do will tend to get small payouts (with some high-profile exceptions, of course). I would be that many/most of those pushing "ban frivolous lawsuits" are also in favor of easing other restrictions on corporate behavior, to make sure profits stay up (but then I'm a knee-jerk liberal).
The real problem in torts (again, from a knee-jerk liberal perspective), in my opinion, is that anyone with lots of money (most corporations) can extort money/behavior out of anyone who doesn't (most individuals) by simply threatening to sue; even if the plaintiff couldn't conceivably win, they can starve out the defendant using legal expenses. I have not seen or been able to come up with a way to remedy this, that does not have large loopholes or cause even further problems.
Guns don't kill people, physics kills people!!!
Dick
Third Rock
There is an issue of who might be to blame for whatever happened. Placing any blame on the individuals most directly involved makes a lot of sense, but there might be other options.
Apart from who to blame there is another real issue here. People do as they are trained. People that spend time honing their twitch reflexes, their aiming, and spend lots of time simulating scenarios where violence is the key to any kind of real power or progress should be expected to fall back on that.
In addition to basic training there are other complications. Recent studies suggest judgement centers in the brain do not begin to become fully operational until 18 and continue to develop in their use until 21, suggesting that young people are inherently vulnerable to judgement errors related to risk assessment. Then there is the time constriction effect where having only moments to react brings out base reactions that reason might otherwise have stopped, as noted in the new book Blink.
Perhaps the future of games, especially for youth, might move beyond shooters and toward more social scenarios where virtual work and heroics reap increasing virtual rewards. Games that mix not only learning, but virtue and honor, could become a popular alternative.
In other news, the parents of a Rocky Wallace, who was battered by a paddle-weilding maniac, are suing Atari, Nolan Bushnell and Steve Jobs. Asked to comment, Mr. Jobs said "Hey I'm innocent. Woz wrote Breakout, not me."
seems to be "fascinated" by the Columbine tragedy. Will Michael Moore be blamed?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In Bowling for Columbine, Manson made exactly this point: the government tells people to be violent, by for example bombing Iraq or Serbia. "And who's a bigger influence: The president? Or Marilyn Manson?"
"42,443 deaths in USA 2001 (CDC); 42,401 deaths reported in USA 1999 for "motor vehicle accidents" (NVSR Sep 2001); 41,804 deaths in 2000 (CDC)" Deaths from Automobile Accidents
Clearly, your chances of being killed by a car are enormously larger than your chances of being killed by a terrorist. Bush would do a better job of protecting americans by removing automobiles than countering terrorism.
Technically, I live in the Bible Belt. I don't own a gun. Never have. Never shot anyone, never been shot. Don't know anyone who has been killed by a gun. Therefore, I can be certain that your statement about the Bible Belt is not only inaccurate but wildly so.
Can you perhaps point us to the statistics which show the percentage of those violent gun deaths committed with legally-registered weapons? How many were violent attacks, how many were self-defense? How many of the triggers were pulled by police, and how many by ne'er-do-wells bent on havoc and mischief?
The story you cited also showed that (e.g.) Great Britain experienced a significantly non-zero number of gun deaths, even though guns are outlawed there. Could you explain that for me?
This is a very complex subject, with many more factors involved than you've covered. Making blanket statements based on a few convenient facts and factoids weakens your argument rather than strengthening it.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Slashdot's put up items that linked across to Al Jazeera, too, for another example of a source some people would object to. (I think that link was to do with a space exploration story, and the Al Jazeera article was basically a re-cast Space.com page.)
The story does have the huge flaws you mention, and it's probably motivated by the "culture wars" mindset, okay. I'm with you on the nature of Fox's News division. They're somewhere between the old strictly-propaganda Pravda and the modern, tabloid version. But slashdot's just not that choosy.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
Are legal fees capped in some way? If someone is sued and decides to spend millions defending themselves, could the other party possibly be liable for the whole bill? It seems to me that any large corporation could then bully its way out of legitimate lawsuits by threatening to spend huge amounts.
Are payouts perhaps capped to an amount equal to the plaintiff's legal fees? Thus if I spend $10,000 on a case, but the defendent spends $2 million, I would be liable for only $10,000? Alternatively, if a ceiling was set for legal fees (perhaps $x dollars per day the case goes on), I would be liable only up to that ceiling?
JAMWiki Java-based Wiki engine
Not saying the parents arent contributing in many ways, but any kid that doesnt know its wrong to blow away cops has other, much larger issues.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Hearing about this case makes me want to kill some cops! Time to sue that lawyer, the American judicial system, and of course Slashdot! I'd have included people involved with TFA, but since this IS Slashdot, no one would believe I read it. ...
Seriously though, the only bit of justice I see here is that Walmart is being sued for selling a game rated M to someone under 17. I think that's perfectly reasonable and since I hate Walmart anyway, all the better.
Thinkin' Lincoln - a web comic of presidential proportions
A kid purchases a Game at a store like Gamestop. Prove that. Okay.. lets say they do prove that. It was purchased as an M rated game. It already stated not for minors. Thus Take-Two is out of the lawsuit.
Now Gamestop may have not carded the kid or not.. If they did, then Gamestop and everyone is out of the loop as the kid committed a crime to get the game by fraud. If they did not then Gamestop should be fined or something from the ESRB because they broke the rules underwhich the people are selling the games.
ESRB ratings have to have teeth otherwise the government will make the teeth.
In the end it comes down to:
Was Gamestop responsible for selling material to minors when it was not for minors? And if so, are ESRB enforceable under a lawsuit?
I can program myself out of a Hello World Contest!!
Perhaps the kid wouldn't have shot the cops if he couldn't have got access to a Gun.
This kid was not given access to a gun.
In true GTA style, he grabbed the gun from the officer's holster, shot all three officers and fled in their patrol car.
If you are trying to suggest that the kid was not influenced by the game, you are just wrong. I think that the thing that should have happened differently is that GameStop and Wal-Mart should not have sold him an M rated game because he was too young for it.
I realize that is an unpopular opinion on Slashdot, but the rating system has to have some teeth if its going to mean something. I would have to see some evidence to say that Sony or Rockstar was responsible, but based on the article, I think Wal-Mart and Gamestop should be punished for selling a Mature rated game to a little kid.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
The claim that GTA trained Thompson to do this is absurd. First, you can't get things from people in GTA unless you've already killed them. Second, the gun mechanic in GTA is completely hopeless, as well as unrealistic in a number of ways (wherever he learned to turn off the safety, it wasn't GTA). Finally, when they caught him, he said you have to die sometime, but you never die in GTA.
About the only thing that he might have gotten from GTA is the idea that you can kill several cops after they've called in and still somehow get away. Not that killing cops in GTA actually helps for getting away, particularly if you're in a vehicle. If someone was taking cues from GTA, they'd certainly never let themself get pulled over without a high speed chase and barricades.
When I was younger there were people called parents that would kept tabs on me. They also instilled me with a pretty good idea of what was right and wrong, real and fantasy.
Now as an adult, I can distinguish between video games and real life.
I married a teacher and nightly get first hand accounts of kids running amuck, and parents who are indifferent or believe that the issue lies the schools not teaching kids to act properly.
The kid in this article should be punished, to the fullest extent of the law. I also believe the parents bear some culpabilty.
BTW this was an episode of Law and Order SVU recently.
It is better to be the hammer than the anvil.
Man, I must really be an underachiever. I've played the GTA series since like 1994 and I've yet to steal a car, run over a pedestrian, or shoot a single police officer. And I've had a 9 year head start on this kid with my 'training'! I'm so ashamed of myself .... really, I am.
perl -e "eval pack(q{H*},join q{},qw{70 72696e74207061636b28717b482a7d2c717b343 637323635363534323533343430617d293b})"
If they really had a clue they'd have gone after Rockstar... But let's see here... The other four make much more money than Rockstar so let's go after them... Is this really "justice"?
Insert Sig Here
Guns don't kill people, death kills people!
http://sonicengineer.iuma.com/
Related link: http://tinyurl.com/7xsz8
Thompson has made something of a career out of lawsuits of this nature
Eventually he'll win one of these lawsuits and hit a big payday. Many people out there think that these games heavilty influence kids to commit these violent acts. It's only a matter of time before he finds a jury that will go along with him.
People also think a game that allows
- taking a rocket launcher and shooting someone in the face is 'fun'
- taking a broadsword and hacking off an opponents arm is 'fun'.
- driving at triple digits on public roads is 'fun'.
- building a rollercoaster that is designed to crash is 'fun'.
- having a giant ape throw boulders at you is 'fun'.
Games are escapism. Deal with it.
1. Kill people
2. Blame actions on video game retailers and manufactuers and sue them.
3. Profit!!!
Brilliant.
~Ben
Yes. The darkest truth is out...
Video games have made me a furry.
"You are right" and shot him in the foot, continuing with... "Oh, does it hurt, just go pick up a health pack or hit the reset button."
If Vidoe Games can make "people do things"....
how come there are no topless chicks cruizing the streets on BMX bike ala BMXXX???
Fly Fish? Participate in our forum
http://www.stopkill.com/ Yes, a whackjob.
I believe that this attorney bears a far greater responsibility than anyone else named in the suit, with the exception of the kid who gained control of the police officer's gun and murdered those people.
What this man is doing is further eroding the concept of personal responsibility in thie United States. He is participating in the "training" of potential murderers by helping them believe that their actions were someone else's fault.
If it weren't so hypocritical, I'd be all about suing Jack Thompson.
-Turkey
Crazy Taxi taught me how to hit-and-run.
Burnout 3 taught me to maximize my crash damage.
Unreal Tournament taught me to aim for the head.
Mario Kart taught me to throw things at my fellow motorists.
The Sims taught me that voyerism is fun.
Counterstike helped me learn to be an effective terrorist.
Fable taught me that being evil is just another way to play a game.
Following the news has taught me that the world is going completely insane.
-G
www.pixelstatic.com
Jesus, do the editors take ANY responsibility for what they post here?
Search Google News for "grand theft auto" and the third link reads:- Grand Theft Auto Led Teen to Kill - Slashdot
Is that what you want the public to think really happened? You're helping these bastards out, Zonk. Shame on you.Fighting is a human instinct. I know in today's politically correct world we'd like to believe that humans don't have these "icky" instincts and that we're above all that, but it's a part of us and you can't deny the truth.
Humans, like most higher order animals have fighting in their blood. When we're little boys, we playfight. Puppies playfight. Kittens playfight. My ferret playfought. Nobody has to teach you to do that, we do it on their own. How many little boys do you know that never playfought?
People love to fight. Even if we don't participate in it, most people like to watch it. How can you tell when there's a fight? Look for the crowd of people watching. They might say how horrible it is, but they can't stop watching, because deep down inside it's something that they want to see.
Violence is a part of human nature, get used to it.
"Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if Pac Man affected us as kids,
we'd all run around in a darkened room munching pills and listening to repetitive music..."
--- Kristian Wilson, CEO, Nintendo Gaming Corporation, Inc, 1989
Wrong. It is an absolute fact that some people (kids) can be directly influenced by some media - books, movie, games. It can be immediate and very stupid. Now proving that GTA was the ONLY influence is impossible, but it certainly was an influence. Remeber, everything in your life influences you in some amount.
9_9 -- but then I realized that just looked more like 'sleep deprived' than 'rolling eyes'. Oh well.
I'm with you, though. I've played video games for about 25 years (from using my 'square with arrow' to kill a dragon, all the way to GTA:SA) and never once was I inspired to commit a crime.
Oh oh, I know what the contrarians will say: "Maybe we should restrict games for kids to just two-color sprites; That way the depictions of cop killing wounldn't be real like in the movies." That way these ambulance chasers and media watch-dogs can get back after the TV/movie producers. Oh, and the gangster rappers. Sigh.
Read Heinlein's 1953 Revolt in 2100, now more than ever.
I suppose one could argue that the US philosophy towards business - letting the marketplace (and the courts) decide things rather than mandating via legislation - tends to encourage this sort of thing.
You're joking. There are plenty of reasons to dislike any political party, but the ones postulated therein are largely hogwash.
:) because he stands to personally profit from his T-Bills is ludicrous. Much of the rest of that page is about as well thought-through.
Really, criticizing the President for holding lots of T-Bills? It's practically the only investment he can hold which is completely free from any potential conflict of interest. Any domestic decision he makes can be seen as favouring some group, and holding stock makes it politically dangerous to make any decisions that may help a company whose stock he holds, regardless of merit. The left has been on Cheney's case for his connections to Halliburton with all kinds of righteous fury. Do you think it would be different if Bush was holding stock in American Airlines, Ford, or Microsoft?
Hell, at least he's buying stock in our government. The contension that he's making a mess of the deficit (and he IS
Come on, people. There are good reasons for holding any number of various (and conflicting) political beliefs, but at least take the time to find them so you don't look like a moron in public.
One parent of a girl shot to death in a similar incident said, roughly, "I raised her the best I could, sent her to a good school, knew where she was and what she spent her time doing, and if I'd only been a bad parent, she'd still be alive." That's a really rough quote, but he basically said that it's not his responsibilty to raise other kids. If video games with an "M" rating are being targeted and sold to children, and in their confused 11 year old world they bring the game into reality, there is nothing anyone can do about it at the level of raising their own kids. Really the only thing this guy CAN do is move out of the city and into no-man's land. That's screwed up.
You can point and blame irresponsible parents all you want, but eventually, if kids killing cops/kids continues, you have to find a solution! Find a freaking cause. Has everyone here forgotten what it's like to be ~11 years old? I knew a guy that jumped outta tree trying to fly and broke his arms, and another incident in which a friend I was with fell into a pool and was drowning in front of me and I didn't really understand what was happening. (Though luckily I do have responsible parents that had told me, if somebody is under water, come tell us about it. And they resuscitated him.)
The problem is, how are you to defend yourself from other kids with shitty parents? Shitty parents don't give a shit, hence the name. Well wait a minute, how about we don't sell a 12 year old a video game that shows him how fun it is to screw a hooker and then cut her head off to get your money. Someone else on here mentioned seriously fscked up priorities. He's dead on, but it doesn't matter, b/c screwed up parents are NOT going to change and suddenly care. That's why Sony and others are being attacked. And this lawyer is not trying to destroy the game, although he personally doesn't like it, but rather desperately trying to get the scope sights off of children and back onto adults. AND to have the "M" rating mean something. I've got 3 younger sibblings and none of them, or their friends, have the slightest trouble getting "M" rated games...and I live in Alabama.
I hope you nay-sayers enjoy having your kids shot to death one day by Billy Fuktard, born to Mr. and Mrs. Fuktard, and raised by Grand Theft Auto. Sarcasm intended, this should never happen. Irresponsible parents will always be there, and it's fact that a video game can seriously affect a childs behavior, as can books, family situations, school, whatever.
At the moment, video games are taking over the parent's role in many cases, and doing a bad job of raising our children. So to throw a little validity at the "irresponsible parents" yellers, yes, you are right, but the parents, in these cases, are video games.
What do I have to do to get a sig around here?! www.bearscanfly.org
There has been a case here in Scotland about the murder of a 16-year old girl and the idea in the local press that it was Marilyn Manson music videos that had insighted the murder. I think if someone is psychological ill enough to become deillusional into believing that a game or a piece of music is telling them to go on a killing rampage then it's the person and not the object of their facination that is clearly at fault.
I suppose this another example of looking to blame something that it is easy to paint a picture of being evil rather than dealing with the real problem. So in this particular case the question I would have to beg is "How did a 17 year old get his hands on a gun to shoot these people with?" and "Why did no one see that he had this kind of fixsation?" and not "How did a 17 year old manage to buy an 18 rated video game?".
Bush would do a better job of protecting americans by removing firearms than countering terroism. You're more likely to be killed by a pig than a terrorist - and your around a million times more likely to be killed by a gun than by Osma.
America needs to stop living in fear and start addressing the real threats to society - one of them being the gun culture.
Yeah, that's it- ban the guns and they'll all just go away. Because we all know that nobody will ever produce a supply when the demand is there.
In addition, let's ban those drugs, too. So many problems are caused by people taking drugs. Just ban crack so people stop taking it. Then the problems will disappear.
While we're at it, let's ban murder. If we banned murder you wouldn't have people taking drugs and using their guns on people.
If the kid says that video games made him kill, it's approximately as believable as when David Berkowitz says the demons in dogs said he should kill.
When did we start taking the opinions of killers as sane evidence?
It was a shitty day up until a smile crept across my face as I read the headline. It then turned into a full fledged grin after reading this gem: "What has happened in Alabama is that four companies participated in the training of Devin ... to kill three men,"
Did it also teach him that no one actually dies, they simply respawn at a hospital or that no matter how many kills you have or explosions you've made when you get busted you get out on bail.
Again, Many Thanks
It is clear to see that if the water in the Northern part of Canada didn't freeze in 2002 that this never would have happened. People have touched on the blame the parents and the gaming issue, but the bigger problem is that people think that a child is not responsible for his own actions and as such someone else must be blamed. Since people think someone besides the actor must be blamed I think I should identify all the sources to blame for this incident. 1. The police: quite clearly if they were not in the location at that time there would not have been an incident. 2) The parents: How could they raise a kid to be so dumb? 3) Society: Parents did not have a chance to raise their kid because society was too busy pumping them full of bad information. 4) Drug lords. Why Not? 5) Video Games. Who can tell the difference between a GAME and REALITY anyway? 6) James Bond. He kills a lot of people after all. 7) Canada 8) etc etc .....
YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL OF YOUR ACTIONS NO MATTER WHAT THE RESULT NO MATTER WHAT THE CONSIQUENCE.
The United States courts system and others have decided that any excuse is now good in courts, and so long as this precedent stands this will not be the last or worst application of BAD laws.
A lawyer is ethically required to represent his client as best he can within the bounds of the law. He should never lie, but working within loopholes is perfectly fine. They do not swear to uphold any particular morality, though, so a suitably inclined lawyer should have no professional problem with getting a murderer, tax collecter, or copyright infringer off the hook if he can do so legally. So what happens if you really don't believe your client is right? Well, most ethical and moral lawyers would ask to be removed from the case, as they would not be able to properly defend the client. A lawyer lacking morals might defend the client regardless, seeing it as just business as usual. A lawyer who is moral but not ethical might stay on the case and ultimately sabotage it, although that's tricky business as if he's ever discovered to have under-represented his client, it can become a mistrial and he'd likely be disbarred.
Of course, this also doesn't deal with that the average lawyer often has to overcome their moral objections because not every client will be innocent and the lawyer has to eat. *wry grin* Lawyers are like actors or athletes. The topmost ones rake in far too much money and most of them are just barely scarping by. Additionally, to get out of the lower ranks, you have to play the political game and if you're in a firm, refusing a case could easily rule out you going anywhere with your career.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
This kid didn't shoot people because he played GTA. I'm sorry, end of story. Chances are, the little voices inside his head made him do it. In the end, nobody can force anybody to DO anything. Bloodsucking lawyers REALLY need to take a break for once, because sorry, but some people are really just severely mentally disturbed. Until everyone realizes this, I'm waiting for the "hate crimes towards the alien community" lawsuit from Space Invaders, and the guy who downloaded the songs he has on vinyl to get taken down by the RIAA. Besides, if the parents/victims REALLY thought violent video games did this, there's plenty of activist groups they can hook up with. Even suing for a few million is not going to make sony take GTA off the shelves.
same gross misconceptions as twenty years ago: same lynching, different victim
Is it a rule, that there's an exception to every rule?
She ended up getting less than $10,000 (far less, iirc) after appeals. Shouldn't have gotten anything, but the 2.9 mil didn't stand, at least.
Since when has all parental responsibilities been placed on corporate america. This is completely unacceptable these parents should be thrown in jail. It's the parents responsibility to teach kids right from wrong and obviously this kids parents FAILED him!.
I was using GTA to train in murder (just like the lawyer suggested). When I was trained well enough I turned off my PS2 and headed outside to cap some prostitutes. That's where I ran into problems. No matter how hard I pressed L1 I couldn't get a lock-on. Also, tried a bunch of cheat codes and at no point did a car fall from the sky next to me. Maybe I have a buggy version of reality? If I return it for replacement, will my old saves work with a newer version of reality?
Search 2010 Gen Con events
'What has happened in Alabama is that four companies participated in the training of Devin... to kill three men,'
Unless this kid had to move the left thumbstick and press the 'X' button on the gun he shot these cops with, this game didn't train him for anything.
On the other hand, parents who clearly have entirely beglected their child, not only those who didn't bother to feed them, but also the ones who leave the raising of the child to nannies and daycares, barely interacting with them, those people should indeed be held liable. I'm sure someone's bound to retort to me that some families, such as single parent or low income, have little choice about being gone for most of the day, but I've known families where it was just the mother and she worked 80-hour weeks. They still interacted as a family. *sigh* Sometimes it seemed even more likely with the two-income executive set... I'm not a proponent of keeping the women in the kitchen, but I am a strong believer that if you have kids younger than school age, one of the parents should take care of the children as their primary job. Heck, given taxes and the cost of daycare, it's sometimes even cheaper...
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Wow, everyone here bashes the lawsuit. Perhaps the attorney has a point -- perhaps it's your frame of reference that is wrong. One poster said: "should we sue Law&Order"? This is a red herring and I'm surprised it was swallowed hook, line, and sinker. The difference is clear: Law&Order is promoting justice by showing the outcomes of illegal acts; grand theft auto is really promoting illegal acts. The intent makes all of the difference.
Imagine, if instead of shooting cops, the video game simulated picking up hookers, explicit details of having one's way with them, perhaps with a bit of "no, no" added in as a voice over implying (to some people anyway) that the target is a rape victim? Imagine the uproar and how quickly the game makers and distributors would be sued.
We ban "sexual" related content on TV because of the influence it might have on teenagers; why do we allow for such extreme violence? Perhaps our country has one of the highest crime rates in the world as a direct result of violent programming and games.
...then what we need is video games that train people to kill LAWYERS.
Slashdot's bad-posting guilt-by-subnet-association sucks.
I don't remember what it was like before video games and TV, but from what I understand there was no violence. It was a world of brotherly love. Where did we go wrong when we invented entertainment and caused all these murders, rapes and wars?
The Amish people have no electricity and hence have no TV and has any of your heard of one going on a shooting spree? Of course not.
The first two World Wars occurred immediately after the popularization of film (movies and talkies). If it was not for this violence inducing entertainment there never would have been any wars.
It's good to see the responsibility for all of societies woes being placed squarely on the entertainment industry. It's time for them to stand up and admit to inducing global violence and sexual depravity
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
Making a bullet that is precise enough to fit a cartridge and have the proper gunpowder amount is significanly more difficult. Having packed my own bullets before (with my redneck NRA grandparents) it is not easy and that was with all the necessary items furnished for use.
You don't sound very familiar with the concept at all. First off, anyone familiar with reloading your own bullets calls it "reloading", not "packing".
I used to help my dad reload all the time. Making your own bullets was extremely easy. All you need is to melt lead (very easy) and have a bullet mold (cheap). As for the powder, if you do it the "hard" way (which is still easy), you measure the powder with a scale. Or you can do it the easy way and buy a reloading press.
This is not a difficult operation by any means. In fact, most people that are into the shooting sports reload their own bullets all the time.
Most people don't mine for lead in their spare time.
Why would anyone mine for lead when he can take a wheel weight off a car? Or buy a sinker for a fishing line? Or use a big roll of solder from Home Depot?
Of all of the trolls I expected to see in this thread yours takes the cake. That is some serious chutzpaw you have there. If it wasn't so obvious of a troll I would have to start to worry.
According to:http://www.plu.edu/~gunvlnce/facts3.html
For 1998 Deaths due to guns Totalled 30,708:
17,424 were gun suicides
12,102 were gun homicides
866 were unintentional or accidental shootings
316 were of undetermined intent
Lets look at it again shall we?
From Joing Together the number for 1993-1999 are under 40K in '93 and under 30K in '99. Most gun deaths are due to suicide (58%). Intentional shooting ranks as 39% (11,071 including 270 police shootings) of gun deaths in 2000.
Your numbers are a bit off. A lot more so than I thought when I first started looking for them. In '99 there were 42,116 people killed in highway crashes More than have died from guns. Where are the people clamoring for Automotive control?
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
This is absurd. I spent about a week in Tuscaloosa County jail with this guy in January 2004. His nickname was "teenager" because he was 17 at the time, and was held in the adult felon dorm of the jail. I can assure you his problems go well beyond his choice of video games.
that guy is an asshat, enuff said
Is anybody else less than surprised that this happened in Alabama, and that Fox News is the one reporting that it's the evil video game? This is just a thought, but maybe if the kid didn't have a gun, he wouldn't have shot the people.
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
On the topic of video game violence, and the thing that I most remember from that presentation is that the evidence is overwhelming - violent video games make "normal" children less violent in the real world. Only in a very small subsection of children that have mental or emotional problems (but not all children with mental or emotional problems) do they cause problems. Caring parents and society should have identified those who are in danger long before they cause these problems. It's not the fault of the video game, it is the fault of society and/or the parents of not identifying the child and offering the support the child needs to mature into a healthy adult.
For this reason, these type of suits will never win. Most if not all lawyers know this, too.
When the federal government started saying that it would take care of us and protect us from all the evils in the world. When Social Security became a wealth redistribution scheme instead of a retirement plan. When people started using welfare as their sole source of income (assuming they don't have any other illegal ones) instead of being just something to get you by until you find a job. When the lawyers/politcians started saying, it's not your fault, it's the guy with a shit load of money's fault, instead of saying that's life.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
If he can say that it's because of the video game that he killed police officers, then i'm going to go catch some small animals in a ball and try to do battle with other people...because i can do that in pokemon so it must be real. The purpose of the rating system on video games is so parents know what their children are getting. I'd be willing to bet that their parents bought the game for him...or at least knew he had it...they probably should have realized that games like that are not meant for their child and should have done something about it. Where'd he get the gun? They're not suing the gun owner are they? If they lose this lawsuit are they going to say that it was actually caused by the music he listens to? I'm 17 and i play GTA a lot...but my parents told me not to go kill people after playing...my parents have taught me morals and what is right vs what is wrong....i'm perfectly sane after beating GTA...i have no sudden urge to go shoot a cop or run over a hooker. It would appear that this kid had some problems...he probably should have been seeing a therapist...again a call of the parents...someone needs to spend some quality time with their child...maybe he'd be less likely to go on a Kill Frenzy in the middle of town.
The day Jesus died for our sins. It sent a clear message to people -- you can do evil things, and as long as you profess to believe in Jesus, you will be saved.
Don't believe everything you "read in places". Do you honestly believe that it's better for 'personal responsibility' to outlaw things like abortion? If so, then what is to stop people from banning video games for exactly the same reason? After all, violent games are 'evil' and quite unnecessary.
But perhaps you don't understand the concept of 'responsibility'.
If I want to play games or have an abortion, I should be able to take responsibility for my own actions. I don't care how many nuts think these actions promote murder on some abstract/metaphysical level.
This type of thing really irks me. I hope the ACLU/EFF shoves a lawyer up this guys (lawyers) a$$ so hard they get stuck in his scrotum. What is wrong with people these days?! A video game can NOT make you insane and start killing people. You have to be insane to begin with. It's the whole "Guns don't kill people, people kill people" argument. And it's TRUE!
Take sample of population of GTA players. Take sample of U.S. population as whole. Take sample of Ala. population. What is the murder rate in each population?
I remember reading an introduction to statistics many years ago that used D&D and suicide hysteria as an example. To wit: RPG players had a lower rate of suicide than the teenage population as a whole. D&D lowers the suicide rate, by that metric.
Any guesses as to what GTA is accomplishing for the people of Alabama, the state with the sixth highest murder rate in the United States (and well above the national average: 7.4 vs 5.5 per 100,000)?
Nice to know someone appreciates it. It amused me because there's always that line in the Bible about Jesus eating with prostitutes and tax collecters. Today, tax collecters are considered to be more annoying than immoral, so it seems odd to us. But honestly, I do suspect there are indeed lawyers out there who (perhaps even unconsciously) don't properly represent their client because they don't believe their client should get away with their crime.
That said, ever notice how all these crime and law shows on TV never have the main characters defending someone they know is guilty? Seemingly guilty clients turn out to be innocent or obviously guilty clients confess, but we're never forced with a moral and ethical conflict, at least out of all the episodes I've seen.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
Video games made me do it.
Jesus made me do it.
Allah made me do it.
The devil made me do it.
The drugs made me do it.
The alcohol made me do it.
The voices made me do it.
The gun to my head made me do it.
Did I miss anything?
In 1968 Charles Manson brutally killed several people inspired by the lyrics of the Beatles. To him the entire White Album was a set of cryptic instructions to kill.
The relatives of the victims didn't sue the Beatles, nobody even thought to do so. 36 years later video game makers and retailers are being sued for being responsible for murder.
Fact of the matter is that the kid had some rather deep psychological problems. "Life is a video game. You've got to die sometime" does not suggest a firm grasp on reality. If it had not been GTA, it would have been something else that the kid confused with the real world. People who are ill can seize anything and use it to justify murder in their mind.
Preventing things like this cannot be prevented by removing violence from videogames, but by catching signs of mental illness early and getting individuals treated before they hurt someone.
RTFA. The lawyer is representing the victims of the crime in a civil lawsuit.
I played Number Munchers, but my math still sucks. What does that say about video games?
Live forever, or die trying.
And it's the police's fault for dieing. They could have simply used the cheat codes to get more life, and if their fingers were fast, they could have gotten armor too. :P
We all dance, we all sing.
-The Streets
Everyone wants to blame someone else. They want to blame the media, blame their video games, blame their friends, etc. But none of these influences is very strong. You should be able to easily override them.
There is one influence, however, that is too strong to resist- God.
The church tells me that God controls everything. When something good happens, it's because of God. When something bad happens, it's because of God also, and he had a good reason for it. Nobody affiliated with the church has ever told me that something is out of God's control. They say he's always in control- he controls all there is.
Therefore I think it's sensible to blame God. God made him do it. God could have overridden this kid's thoughts but he didn't. God allowed it to happen.
So I think instead of blaming the media, the gun makers, the video game makers, or the parents, we should blame Jesus instead. Sue the church. Because as any good Christian will tell you, God is always in control of things and therefore is liable for everything that happens.
(Hey, if you're going to claim that you're in control of everything that happens, be prepared to accept responsibility for everything that happens)
What the fuck is wrong with this country?
Parents allow video game to raise child
here you go.
I love video games, been playing them since I was like 3 years old. I love violent video games. GTA: VC is one of the best games, period. It is probobly one of the most fun, best written, best produced games ever, even after beating it multiple times it retains it's fun. I also love the Unreal Tournament series, the Quake series, the Doom series, and so on. I used to play Quake Team Fortress competitively, and was rather good.
Yet I'm not a violent person. I don't get in to fights, haven't been in one since junior high school and even then I only defended myself, I never struck or attempted to strike the other kid. I don't believe in using force to impose my will on other people.
I also love violent movies, music with angry/violent lyrics, and I'm even so evil as to own and enjoy shooting a gun.
So what's going on then? Why didn't I learn by example from all this entertainment? Why aren't I the violent product of what you seem to think is an overly violent society?
Perhaps could it be your theory is totally wrong, and that people are capable of enjoying violence as entertainment, but being able to seperate it from reality?
Not to be morbid, but, the game trained a kid to do all that, I'd say the POLICE need to be playing more GTA themselves.....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This guy is not defending any one and there is no prosecutor. This lawyer is merely trying to capitalize on a tragedy.
Maybe if they read the fucking ESRB rating on the game! It's the parents fault for buying the game, and the kid for being stupid.
In Soviet Russia, Linux compiles you!
I listened to a Frank Zappa song, and it trained me to spend all my money on Montana-grown dental floss.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Remid me that next time anyone on /. sees me playing Call of Duty to go murder some people and have the ''victims'' blame Infinity Ward and Activision and the Pope while the're at it...
But seriously, I strongly agree with dfenstrate; "What the fuck is wrong with this kid, and his parents?"
my 2''''
I blame "The Sims" for making me lead a pointless, boring, middle class life.
But people that say that GTA doesn't cause violence are missing the bigger picture that it allows people to discover just how little coverage the police have in real life. That's probably not a good thing for anybody
Ahh, security through obscurity. That's great! Everybody doesn't know that the security doesn't really exist, so it works as if it does exist! Wonderful! Superb! Excellent!
Oh well.
I just finished playing a pacman marathon. Now I want to run around taking bites out of everything I see!
ARRRRGGGGGG!
Obviously, the game isn't real enough. Or else he'd still be playing it and not have the need to go kill someone for real. ...kidding.
I agree with your viewpoint. Regardless of the gender of the parent someone should be home with the children, hopefully longer than just pre-school age, if possible.
Single parents have little choice but to work, but I've seen families where both parents worked just so they could live in the $400,000 new home with all the furnishings and two cars. If you ask them, they'll tell you it's because they both "want to work and have careers". However, did they not also want children? And why does that not take precedence?
So if a depressed but non-violent teen takes Zoloft and kills his grand parents it is because he is evil and should have known not to listen to the voices in his head telling him to kill. Pfizer is not responsible even though they buried evidence of violence from the FDA.
Yet...
Another teen who plays video games somehow figures out that killing 3 people sounds like fun. He is a victim of coercion by a software company and that company should be held responsible for his actions? I wonder how many GTA testers went home and killed people after a hard day at work?
So in the end we prove that video games exert a greater influence over the human psyche than mind altering drugs? Will my health care provider pay for video games if I claim they help relieve hyper tension?
I saw an interview with Stephen King once, and they asked him why America was so violent (referring to his books being a possible influence). His response? "The world in general has the same access to the same books, same video games, and same movies/television as America. The ONLY difference in our culture compared to other cultures is the rampant proliferation of firearms". America seems to have this fascination with being afraid and arming themeselves to the teeth, and every once in a while some whack-job puts that attitude and those weapons to use in your local neighbourhood.
GTA taught me that getting arrested makes me wake up outside the police station sans $200 and my weapons. I never would have known what to do INSIDE the station!
I have been using Tag Face on people without warning.
...
and if you believe that, I've got a fix for Social Security to sell you
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Violent people tend to like violent videogames. Teens tend to like violent videogames.
This doesn't mean violent videogames change teens into violent people.
Other example : in Italy there's a correlation between internet use and divorce rate. But actually, it's more because the poorer south is more religious, and the richer north is more connected. So no causation.
Not only parents raise a kid. Family, friends, teachers, etc. all have a part to play. The family connection is definite though. It's not always easy to pick out what really influences a child and what they don't attach to.
For example, I was a real ass to my younger brother when we were growing up. I know that affected him and at the time I didn't care. How much did it influence him? I don't know, and frankly it's sad to think about. He never committed any crimes, but he had some spells of anger where he went crazy though. Now, I don't take full responsibility for his actions, but I should take some responsibility for raising him even if I was only his brother.
Soooo... if we blame others with respect to their "responsibility" for us killing someone and then get money from them... doesn't that mean that we then ,technically OWE money to folks like our parents and teachers if we profit from their influence....
seems stupid when you say it like that, doesn't.
dave
Um... Isn't it bizarre that you can just up and sue someone for offering a product that you don't have to buy? It's also not a case of an exploding television set, it's information.
Wow! And how about that war in Iraq? Did that not warp our collective little mind? I wonder if I could get out of paying child support because I only had sex because society expected me to, which is of course Fox's fault for showing the Simple Life, which is endorsing the despicable behaviour of Paris Hilton, as seen in her sex tape. It's an interesting enough sex tape, I'll tell you. It probably didn't hurt that daddy bought her a really nice camera.
Anyway, Paris Hilton made me kill my mother.
Please stop stalking me, bro.
What if it's just because this kid found himself in the middle of a situation where he could use violence, and his genetic endowment (like that of MOST males ages teen-thru-29) offered his mind violence as an option? And he took it?
What if it's no one's fault but natural selection?
Intelligent Design: because MATH is HARD.
Not suing Rockstar?
arguments are being made across the country about what responsibility a company has toward it's products. mcdonalds gets sued over transfat, hot coffee, and making people fat; tobacco companies for false advertising and causing cancer. bar owners can get sued for allowing their clientele to drink and drive. people want to sue gun manufacturers for drive-by shootings. so why can't people sue media companies for the influence their products have on a consumer? are we suggesting that they have NO influence; or, are they exempt from responsiblity? if research determines that prolonged exposure to certain environments (GTA / MTV / Pr0n) can influence behavior or perceptions of reality to a certain extent, then why wouldn't a company have a liability concern?
We can safely assume that this is a scaremongering tactic by the right-esque media, to conform with the standards beset upon us by the Lord in His infinite mercy in Heaven.
amen
Check journal for info on Anti-TextBook, an idea by me.
Hey. how can this be true? There aren't any dispatchers in GTA!
I think you've missed the point.
Reading through Concern's other postings, he explains that "propaganda" is not protected speech. It is "fair game" for censors. If you are squelching propaganda, you are not censoring, and not inhibiting free speech.
Yes, we all know Jack T. is full of crap...here is his website with his email at the bottom. Feel free to send him an email. http://www.stopkill.com/
This could go badly in a hurry.
For that matter, under lawyers faced with moral and ethical dilemnas in movies, one might include Liar, Liar. Admittedly, Jim Carrey continues to defend his client who he knew was guilty, even finding ways to get around that nasty moral prohibition against lying to maintain his ethical stance as a lawyer defending his client...
Myself, I'm the son of a lawyer, but he's not a court lawyer. Rather, he was the kind of lawyer you went to to check the legality of property transfers and the like. He now works for one of the local banks, advising them on legal matters. So I've got some practical understanding of law and ethics, despite my joking disclaimer. ^_^ Although I have portrayed a lawyer on stage, so it was honest. Then again, I've also been a marriage counselor, a cult member, a monkey, a teacher, a serial killer, a werewolf, an Egyptian grave-robber, and Lady Enid of Mandercrest. At that, the last three roles were all in the same play.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
If you put this together with an article over on wired about how the brain takes several hours to get out of "video game mode" this article becomes a little scarier. article at wired news http://www.wired.com/news/games/0,2101,66225,00.ht ml
visit me at www.longdead.net
The original question still stands. What kind of person finds pleasure in those kinds of activities, even if it is only a representation of that activity?
Quite a lot of people. The vast majority of action, horror, and suspense movies are the same. Silent movies...the damsel in distress tied to the railroad tracks, ready to be squished. Hell...we could go back to Romeo and Juliet. Ritualized suicide and gangland murder. You think a couple of hundred years ago, a valid murder defense would have been "Shakespeare made me do it!", because he saw the play too many times? Bah.
This same danger exists with porn. You've got predators out there that find themselves no longer satisfied with looking at pictures. We just had a sicko arrested here in Albuquerque as he was planning a trip down to Mexico to gain access to children.
And? You think that same thing hasn't been happening for centuries? You've evidently missed the whole catholic priest thing that's been going on. I'm not saying GTA is a good game, with positive moral values. Far from it. But these types of depictions have been going on for centuries. This is nothing new.
Lawsuit Claims 'Grand Theft Auto' Motivated Teen Gunman
http://www.nbc13.com/news/4200301/detail.html
If Ozzy Ozbourne was acquitted from being responsible for a teenager's suicide because he listened to Ozzy's "Suicide solution" again and again, why are we even debating this?
There is case law precedent for the idea that media, when properly rated (and GTA carrys the ESRB mature rating) cannot be held responsible for personal behavior.
Lots of people here have come up with contrary examples, none of them are even close to the X rated series "Faces of Death" series of films, which straddle the line between legit and snuff film as finely as can be done without penalty.
If legislators don't like games which allow urban and undereducated youth to act out aggressive fantasies that map to their real existence, they will find a way to label it indecent. Or attack Take Two using tangental methods such as sicking the IRS on them every year, and subjecting them to all kinds of financial audits until they bankrupt them. But, the forces of good can't win this way, through the court cases regarding individuals performing acts and blaming the influence of media. There is too much precedent on this issue.
IANAL...
IA(so-very-much)NAL...
Could somebody please explain something I overheard and if it's even relevant here?
This fellow was ranting at the office about Common Law vs. Admiralty Law, and how the American Bar Association has shifted our country's legal system from the former to the latter and moved the burden from the perpetrator to the victim. He said that suits like this would have been ignored if not punished, and that it was this kind of litigation-mania along with taxes and persecution that caused some people to flee 18th century England.
I'm not a historian either, so I don't know if this guys just blowing smoke and steam, or what.
Even if this guy is right about the Common vs. Admiralty laws, does that even relate to this topic at all?
If so, how?
---
People do what they want to, every time. If it pains them to make a choice - if the 'choice' looks like a 'sacrifice' - you can be sure that it is no nobler than the discomfort caused by greediness... the necessity of having to decide between two things you want when you can't have both. The ordinary bloke suffers every time he chooses between spending a buck on beer or tucking it away for his kids, between getting up to go to work and losing his job. But he always chooses that which hurts least or pleasures most. The scoundrel and the saint make the same choices.
-Robert A. Heinlein
While being booked at the station, he allegedly grabbed a police officer's pistol and then shot its owner and two other officers in the head; all three died.
Remember Police Quest 1? Somebody wasn't following procedeure and THAT'S who is to blame in this tragedy.
The key here is that the victims are looking for a big award or settlement as a result of suing big corporations. The claim is cooked up in order to blame them since they're the ones who have the cash. It's as simple as that.
Obviously this kid is a fucknut. He should go to jail for a long long time, or the nuthouse, or the chair. Whatever. He did it and he should be punished extremely severely. His parents should get a moderate punishment too.
But Wal*Mart didn't shoot the policemen. Rockstar didn't shoot the policemen. One of the officers allowed a perp to take his gun. Who's getting sued for that? Why isn't everybody suing the police department for not training the officers to keep their guns away from perps, and/or for not using those biometric sidearms that don't work if they're not being held by the officer they're assigned to?
Answer: because the police department doesn't have deep pockets.
This is a classic frivolous lawsuit. The lawyers will say they're "sending a message" to those awful video game people. What they're really doing is trying to make their cut as large as possible.
Wal*Mart should be fined some small amount for letting a kid get two rated-M games while underage, if it can be proven that he didn't get someone to buy it for him who was of age.
Kids and their damn printing presses; I mean Rock and Roll; I mean Video games; I mean...
Welcome to the land of the free...pay toll ahead...no photography...please open your bag...
And you must be a left-wing socialist hippy.
I've seen this myself. The discworld novels points this out in some of the city guard novels.
The rich can live cheaper than the poor. Sure, their leather boots cost 10 times as much as the cheap ones with the cardboard soles, but the cheap boots on last a month, while the boots will last a lifetime, and likely be able to be passed down. Furniture and clothing the same way.
I've seen people who live well on pay that others are struggling to make ends meet on.
Rich money credit: Home loan (5-10%?)
Middle class credit: Credit cards 10-20%
Poor 'credit': Paycheck advances, pawn shops $$$
I don't read AC A human right
Actually there are TONS. First of all there are hundreds (probably thousands) of active serial killers in the US alone right now, 99% of which you will never hear about. Second of all you have to remember that you're getting most of your information about serial killers from sensationalized media, which couldn't portray a picture farther from the truth.
Think about it. What the media wants you to know is that they caught a serial killer whose life was all fucked up because he had a hard life. The media wants a story that makes sense, that people can revel in, but not feel TOO bad about, and mostly that they can understand.
How many of the stories that have almost no explanation do you think make it to the 6 'o clock news? Very few. But there are a lot. Like I said, go spend some time in a mental institute, or at least talk to someone who has.
And just so you know, off the top of my head here are a couple examples of killers whose lives don't follow the typical media portayed serial killer "norm":
Philip Badowski: killed his parents because God told him to. No signs of abuse, and by all accounts a normal childhood. Supposedly his parents scolded him for some thing he did wrong and on the "spur of the moment" he did what God told him to do.
Lucian Staniak: One of Poland's most notorial serial killers. Had a fine childhood, although was apparently traumatized by the death of his family... still not a victim of abuse, and he was eventually found to be schizophrenic.
That's actually the most common tie to most serial killers, not any environment factors such as parents... mental disease.
I understand that you want to believe as a parent you can produce a "good" child just be being a "good" parent, but that's not always the case. Most of the time you don't have a choice if your kid has down-syndrome, or schizophrenia... these things just happen.
And just so you know, I do agree with you, parents SHOULD be accountable for their kids, especially while they're not within the age of majority, but despite that you simply can't make blanket judgements like "they didn't do everything right, or their child wouldn't have become a serial killer."
That is the statement that is simply not right.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It's not always the parents... Parents can do a great job at raising their kid when the kid is at home, but when a child is at school parents have about zero influence.
A child can get psychologically demolished by his/her fellow children at school. Children can be quite cruel to eachother... That can leave its traces...
Parents mostly don't notice until it is too late. Those traumas are with someone for the rest of their lives; wether conscious or unconscious, but those traumas can make someone do weird things.
So don't immediately point to the parents alone and say that they are responsible; there can be more to it... Though I have to admit that quite some parents have made an unresponsible impression upon me...
Blub?
..."personal responsibility" is a crock of shit. The people who tout it tend to be highly disconnected from reality. I think what we have here with Devin Thompson is a kid with a serious mental problem. Based on the article that Slashdot had a few months back that indicated that a lot of people are having trouble separating reality from games, I think there is a definite mental issue that needs investigating. I have no problem playing games like Doom 3, Unreal 2004, Quake 3 Arena, etc... and then doing my normal day-to-day stuff without having the urge to "frag" anyone. I'm sure there are a lot of you who can do this as well. The very fact that there are people out there who CANNOT do this is mindboggling, but not unbelievable. I think that there needs to be serious research into the abilities of people to separate virtual/conceptual from real. I am willing to bet that there is a HUGE disconnect for a lot of people and those people should have their video game playing controlled and monitored to prevent tragedies like this. If we don't do this, things like this will happen more and more frequently and get worse and worse. Personal responsibility is a nice idea but only if you're dealing with a full deck. This kid and people like him aren't all there. [grumble] "personal responsibility" my ass [/grumble]
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
I think we're going about this all wrong. Violent videogames aren't a PROBLEM, they are the SOLUTION -- people are just playing them in the wrong mental state. In middle school, we should just feed kids small doses of LSD, amphetamines, and pain/stress inducing agents, then FORCE them to play things like GTA. That'd cure that yearning for a bit of the ol' Ultraviolence, I tell ya. Of course, god have mercy on the poor child who acidentally starts playing Mario instead...
How's this sound? "Complete background record and happenings of everyday life for 16 years eventually drove a 16-year old to kill. Or maybe it was just on a whim. We don't know." Ten bucks says it's closer to the truth.
If this is all about breaking those kinds of limits, who's to say it wasn't because of that porn web site he snuck into the weeks before the murder? Or because of those three sips of beer he had when he was 14? I can't express my hate enough for dumbing these things down to one pivotal event.
It's because of everything, stupid.
So they are being sued because they "helped train him to kill"??
So should we sue the government for every shellshocked soldier who comes back home from a war-zone and robs a store / kills his wife?
Besides the fact that this game is obviously intended for entertainment and not as a homicidal training device the argument itself is stupid. Take responsibility for yourown actions - enough with the BS scapegoating already.
OMG! i play GTA too! do you think im going to be safe? i really hope i don't suddenly start shooting people, im going to go and unplug everything and break the disk in half, should i burn it too? Seriously, im really scared because this guy was obviously hypnotised or something buy this game and was helpless to go and kill people.
This sort of bullshit really pisses me off, where do these people get off gold-digging like this? The fact is, normal people do not get hypnotised or 'motivated' by video games, only mentally unstable people are prone and these people should probably NOT be allowed out on the streets.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
How ridiculous does this sound? Well... it's essentially their argument.
The gun maker/seller.
I'd point you to the history of your own religion. More people have been killed in the name of your god than evey by people who've played GTA. Read the Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer of Witches) as a starting point. Christanity's history is rife with violence in the name of the religion and the morals it allegedly espouses.
Thing is, people will often attempt to justify their actions with what they read/watch/etc but it's usually an excuse, not a reason. I find it amusing when religious people look down their nose at pop culture as the source of all society's problems. Of course when one learns history, you discover that there was far more violence and death in the past, when religion had a stronger influence.
If you think violent media causes people to be violent, think again. It no more causes someone to be violent than being Chrsitian causes someone ot be a homophobe.
I don't really know what you're talking about, I haven't had a chance to read the article. I've been too busy running around the house eating these yellow dots and OMG A GHOST!!!!!
put the what in the where?
This is nothing new... our company has been a defendant in "wrongful death" lawsuites twice now.
In Joe James, et al. v. Meow Media, Inc., et al. (aka the Paducah, KY school shootings),
the defendants claimed that their son visited Persian Kitty's Adult Links
[Note: Adult Content], where they viewed violent pornography which caused them to
shoot fellow high school students.
Here's an interesting summary by morelaw on the case.
Here's an interesting piece by PBS on this new fad.
As this national fad spread, we were then sued by the defendants in what's popularly known
as the Columbine High School Shootings. Again, we had to defend ourselves... in parallel. Two
lawsuits, in two different states... and the unsuccessful [by plaintiffs] appeals that followed.
Here's aa PDF of the Columbine case for those who are interested.
Fortunately, we were able to use the ruling (after plaintiffs had exhausted all appeals) in the
first case to get the second case dismissed, late in the game. By then, we had already paid out
six figures in legal fees alone. Good thing we're in the "online adult entertainment" business,
or else we might have been put out of business.
To those who say "so... sue them back!" -- I strongly recommend you learn more about our
legal system (through accredited sources, not word of mouth). I can see the newspaper headlines
now... "Family may lose home because of Pornographer's lawsuit, after having recently
lost their son."
YMMV.
Someone else is to blame for this. Who can I sue?
SAILING MISHAP
These lawsuits have been going on for years: They blamed Doom for Columbine too and a judge simply threw it out. The more judges that see these absurd lawsuits the more they'll be ignored them in the future, classic example of "The boy who cried wolf", so I say bring them on, just get them all out of the way now so in the future developers don't have to worry about these ridiculous lawsuits anymore.
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
The kid was playing the game because he already had this sociopathic behavior, and games of this sort are very popular with sociopaths. It's NOT the other way around.
The game doesn't make someone a killer; it's just that people who would kill would also enjoy this type of game.
That's not to say, obviously, that everyone who chooses to play these games is a sociopath...
First of all, it is silly to argue that games don't affect you.
Just like books and movies, you are affected by playing games.
Just as you will learn a thing or too from Moby Dick, or from watching the Godfather movie, you will learn things from playing games.
All stories and experiences (is a game's case) affect you, for good or bad.
Now, whether you should hold the authors of these stories or experiences responsible for your actions after reading/viewing/playing their works, that is the question.
In the case of Grand Theft Auto, the game is marked MATURE, just like a movie would be rated R. So the authors are not responsible for any kid getting it, nor what a kid does if he does get it.
Now the question is, is it against the law to purchase a game rated MA, or a movie rated R for a minor.
Because if the kid had a steady diet of MA games, and R rated movies, and PORN... and if the parents bought it for him, or if a store sold it to you, should society hold them responsible if anything but for giving something that is labeled to adults to kids?
That said, ever notice how all these crime and law shows on TV never have the main characters defending someone they know is guilty?
Never watched the Practice? Or Boston Legal?
Part of the reason you don't often see it is because shows are typically from the perspective of the prosecutor or take place in civil law.
Since you're clearly uninterested in one of the basic tenets of the American judicial system. You have a right to an attorney who will look out for YOUR interests, not the state's, not the public's, not the victim's. YOUR interests.
Would *you* want a defense attorney who was only looking out for the state's interests? But, hey, *you*'ll be innocent, right? I guess tough titties if your defense attorney decides you're not and tanks your defense out of respect for society.
The kind of attorneys you want are found in dictatorships and similarly oppressive regimes. Why not move to one?
Did he kill or beat any hookers while he was at it?
Cause if he didn't its gunna be kinda hard to convict
I tried this once, too, because of games. However, I couldn't find the triangle button on the damned thing and it took me too long to respond.
Take a patent out on suing video game companies for violent crimes. Sic the lawyers on each other.
Wasn't he the Australian soldiers defence attorney in Breaker Morant? Look what happened to them.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
wow
um the right to have an abortion is a fundamental freedom that would show alot of personal responsibility if it is exercised.
A women having an abortion is what a responsible women should do, if she cant raise the child. I definately dont want to be paying for some kid no one wanted...
Also please remove the dr who reference in your sig as you are clearly too stupid to appreciate dr who on the level that i apreicate dr who and are doing a dis service to dr who, and the entire dr who comunity, by having his words in the sig of such a crusty blood soaked pimple head such as yourself.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
I'm as eager to blame parents for child stupidity as anyone, but I didn't see anything in the article that suggested the parents were at fault.
Blaming parents for child behaviour is sometimes as stupid as blaming video games for child behaviour, because this guy was 16 or 17 years old when he committed this crime. Until we see evidence that the parents were somehow negligent then I suggest we consider that the child is at fault. After all, at 16-17 years old I was pretty damn sure that shooting people was a bad idea.
"Life is like a video game. We all gotta die sometime." Please. That's either the words of a seriously deranged individual or some of the most obviously scripted bullshit I have ever seen.
Stop shifting blame. Blame the kid for being an asshat and a murderer until other factors come to light.
OK. Intelligent discussion it is. As long as you don't mind a bit of humour thrown in for good measure...
I'd say that I only agree with you about the dangers of games up to a point. And it's not a distant point either.
I think the key lies in "If you don't have other patterns established in your psychology to overcome these antisocial patterns, games like this WILL train you to associate criminally antisocial behavior with pleasure."
Yes. Completely true. That's why games have ratings so they shouldn't be played by those unable to differentiate between game and reality. Or in fact between right and wrong. Like many people posting here, I've spent long hours playing computer games. And I've experienced the urge to continue game thinking after the soothing glow of the cathode ray tube has ceased. But in real life you do not kill people. It is wrong. Most children learn at an early age what is right and wrong - if someone doesn't know that killing someone in a game and killing someone in real life are different, and that the latter is clearly not good then something worse has happened to that person than simply playing a computer game.
Game thinking includes the urge to fight back against someone attacking you, the urge to drive fast in order to beat the car beside you to the next intersection and even working out the best way to stack those bricks in the builders yard so that when you drop that long girder down lengthwise you'll get more points. These all require situations occurring while you're still thinking about the game. From personal experience, I've found that sufficient doses of real life (say 15->20 minutes and a nice cup of tea and maybe a chat with friends) will knock most of those urges right out of you. Hell, even just leaving the house and interacting with other people will reaffirm the social values we've all grown up with.
The problem that all these "games caused me to kill" cases have is that they all involve premeditation. The kids who get their parents gun and take it to school and kill their classmates. That's not games causing them to kill. It's not a quick urge to continue game thinking in the real world if a similar situation crops up. It's creating the situation that allows you to kill and then doing so. I'm not saying it's all the parents fault for letting their kids grow up with a squeaky wheel on the shopping trolley of life and death but if the shoe fits (and it often does) then someone should have gotten the WD-40 out a few years ago.
I'll leave this rant with one last thought: this sort of lawsuit happens when an event occurs that is similar to something that happenned in a computer game, but cops were killed before computer games were played, and TV was blamed for violence - so do the games take their inspiration from real life? Games as the effect and not the cause.
If you can't think of something nice to say then don't say anything at all. No, REALLY.
I watched Superman when I was 5, and jumped out of a tree to see if I could also fly. I watched Karate Kid, and my brother took the abuse as I was practicing my new moves on him. Kids are kids, and if parents aren't there to tell them "This is only a movie/game", I don't think that I should be forbidden from playing or buying such games or movies for it. Stupid damn parents...
Because we keep the gun we receive in the army ourself (this is a milice army, everbody does it). And with ammunition. This is in case of "war" (even Switzerland is neutral), but there is _NO_ gun crime with these weapons. Everything is with the mentality.
Come on people, these games don't really affect average kids! I am willing to bet the teen in the article is disabled!
If people really have a problem with this, perhaps they could become better parents? Hmm?
Pardon my cynicism, but don't you think it took longer than expected for Grand Theft Auto to be blamed for something like this?
Why haven't movies taken the blame as much as video games? Remember how Terminator 2 made it 'funny' to shoot people, as long as there was 'zero casualties'?
I should voice my opinion, and state that this claim is absolutely perposterous.
Who'd have thunk it!
....and much more
Due to years of gaming I'm a trained:
1)Fighter pilot
2)Martial artist
3)Combat magician
4)Medieval warrior
5)Soldier/Officer (of various ranks)
6)Genetic engineer
7)Astronaut
8)City Engineer/Town Planner
9)Medical administrator
10)Crime lab detective
11)Chess champion
I'd just like to thank God, and all those wonderful companies for all my training.
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Well, I would consider most of his economic policies thus-far (his tax cuts aside, but including -- perhaps *especiallly*, in fact, because it gets the government controlling peoples' ownership in businesses -- his Social Security reform proposal) to be of a socialist nature. Steel tariffs, a $1.2 trillion (claimed $400 billion, but has grown in actuality since then) Medicare expansion, no govn't spending vetos in his first term (a record last-matched about 150 years ago by President Millard Fillmore), and the largest growth in government spending since Lyndon B. Johnson (of the "Great Society" socialist programs fame) -- all of these hardly add up to a President who really, *honestly* believes in the smaller-government populist propaganda he espouses.
His social policies, OTOH, are straight-up southern conservative though, all in favor of war, limiting free-speech, outlawing gay marriage, outlawing abortions, etc..
In sum, the truth is, George W. Bush is a fascist socialist, or a "totalitarian-lite" socialist. In virtually every respect, he is the antithesis of everything I stand for, namely, individual freedoms and a wide variety of civil liberties regardless of race or sexual preference, *true* free-market capitalism (not this phony bullshit govn't-run "capitalism" he wants to institute w/ his SS personalization reforms), and anti-interventionist foreign policy. It's a value set that is in rather short demand these days...
Is Capitalism Good for the Poor?
There was a Law and Order: SVU episode recently on television (last week? two weeks ago? I lose track of time - I think it was the new episode of the week) that dealt with just this issue.
In it, a scummy lawyer posed for a sadistic, thrill-killer who used games as a justification for his deeds. The games weren't why he killed: he killed because he was a sadistic fuck with no soul. Games were just the scrapegoat because the media allowed for (and believed) it.
The overall theme was "personal responsibility". As in, the responsibility of both the people involved in the murder (they convicted the fucker) and the people that raised the issue of how much of it has to do with parents spending time with/raising their children properly. It was a very, very chilling ending for someone who is both a parent and someone that enjoys games.
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
Nail this guy's hide to the barn door and it'll be a while before this kind of crap lawsuit gets filed again by anybody.
Tech Public Policy stuff
Perhaps it wasn't playing the game that made him violent; perhaps it was his violent nature that made him play the game. A naturally violent person will gravitate to violent entertainment, and if that person later commits a crime, that entertainment was a warning sign, NOT a cause.
My sig can beat up your sig.
Even if it is true that this poor SOB learned to kill police officers in the game, the lawsuits are still absolutely devoid of merit.
Yes, videogames influence kids, yes, playing GTA may make you more violent (though it can very well make someone else LESS violent), but it's not a simple causal relationship such as with smoking and cancer.
Out of tens of millions of people who played various GTA versions, only a handful committed a violent crime that can be somehow connected with this video game. It should be obvious to anyone that the effect (if there is some) can only be responsible statistically for very few crimes. If you randomly take 10 million people, there will be a few cop killers and carjackers. Of course there are some among GTA players.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.