Slashdot Mirror
Grand Theft Auto Civil Case Moves Forward
An Alabama court has refused a request by retailers and Take-Two Entertainment lawyers to throw out a 'Grand Theft Auto-style killing spree' civil case. From the Next Generation article: "Moore, who was 18 at the time of the 2003 slayings, is convicted of killing two Fayette county officers and a dispatcher, and claimed that Grand Theft Auto inspired him to do it. That defense was barred, and Moore was sentenced to death. Although that defense was thrown out, the multi-million dollar suit filed by relatives of the victims claim that Moore was in fact mimicking GTA, which attorneys claim Moore played 'obsessively'."
Love the culture of blaming anything on everyone except the person who actually did it to begin with. /disgusted
The next time I'm arrested for stealing, lying and circumventing the law, I'm going to blame it on CSPAN, which I watch obsessively. While I may get a slap on the wrist and time served, I do wish my victims well in their civil suit against CSPAN for it's contribution to my anti-social behavior.
>victims claim that Moore was in fact mimicking GTA, which attorneys claim Moore played 'obsessively'
even if we're prepared to accept that there's a causal link in this case between observation and mimicking, surely that he played it 'obsessively' is enough to reject the argument. if you eat/drink/smoke/gamble/have sex/do anything 'obsessively' there are bound to be negative consequences.
if, on the other hand, he'd played the game for 30 minutes and, for example, the seqence of lights and sounds put him into a suggestable state of hypnosis and programmed him to be a cop-killer (not possible annyway since hypnosis can't make you do anything you're not really prepared to do), then there might be a case.
If a person's mental state is so twisted that they would kill 3 people after being 'influenced' by a video game, then obviously there are much deeper issues at fault than a bunch of pixels and a joypad.
Where is the logical conclusion to this constantly expanding era of absurd litigation? It's scary to think where it may lead... hell, it's scary enough to think about where we are with it already.
She's built like a steak house, but she handles like a bistro....
http://www.bash.org/?627522
<comwalk> Remember, here in the U.S.A, we have reached a new age.
<comwalk> NOBODY is responsible for their own actions.
<comwalk> Remember that.
<comwalk> Holy shit! I killed somebody! Bob made me do it!
<comwalk> Bob: Joe made me do it!
<comwalk> Joe: I blame the media!
<comwalk> Media: Videogames.
<comwalk> Videogames: Personal responsibility?
<comwalk> Personal Responsibility: <AFK>
By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
I wonder why... the phrase "don't give them ideas" is commonly used?
It's commonly used on people who already tend to express negative behaviors regardless of whether they're given ideas or not. E.g.:
"Those greedy bastards in Congress. Next they'll be taxing us for the air we breathe!"
"Don't give them any ideas."
Which is in fact perfect for the situation -- this man was already violent. That the particular violent acts he performed may or may not have been influenced by a game is just a footnote. Not that it looks like they were -- other than police officers being involved, there is nothing "GTA-like" about his violent acts.
Perhaps if he hadn't played the game, he would have shot them in the chest where hopefully the cops couldn't have died instantly.
Nonsense. First, any idiot knows you will be more likely to kill someone if you shoot them in the head. Cops are trained to aim for the torso to be more sure of your shot. I learned this long before the first video game that bothered to distinguish "head shots" came around, and then it was only representing what everyone already knew. If this guy wanted to kill the cop, and was close enough to shoot him in the head, he was going to shoot him in the head.
Having clearly never played the game yourself, let me also say that GTA does not particularly encourage head shots. The basic targeting system does not allow it, and using manual targeting is difficult and dangerous in most firefights. Which is just one small example of the ludicrosity of the statement:
In other words, videogames TRAIN the players to become better and more effective criminals. I don't know about you, but the thought gives me the creeps.
There is no practical real-world skill that you can learn from GTA. Learn how to car-jack? I keep looking for the Triangle button but can't find it. Firing a gun? Holding R1 to target and X to shoot doesn't do anything to teach you how to fire in real life -- I know, I've done both. The only reason it gives you the creeps is because you've never played to know that it is absolutely nothing like real life and there is no transferable skill that you can learn. Anyone who thought they could practice to become a criminal by playing GTA would find themselves sadly mistaken.
Here's the fact: Millions of people play games like GTA. A few perform violent acts that can in some way be described as being like the game. That's pretty shitty for a game that TRAINS you to be a criminal. In fact, that's the exact same ratio of people who end up being violent criminals in the populace at large. Could it... could it be... that games have nothing to do with causing crime, and are nothing but a scapegoat used as a weak defense by the criminal themselves, and by clueless idiots who are incapable of thinking about the true causes of crime?
Yes.
The enemies of Democracy are