Slashdot Mirror
Games Seized Following Murder
GamePolitics reports that M-rated games have been taken as evidence a case involving the death of a 55-year old man in Louisiana. The connection? Jack Thompson says: "Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer." GP goes on to point out the lunacy of this claim. From the site: "Funny, that. A quick Google search on 'shot in the face' turns up 921,000 entries."
So what if "shot in the face" turns up 900,000 hits (it only shows 13,000 hits in my browser). "Jews did 911" turns up almost 900,000 easily.
The point of this is that you can't extrapolate something like a Google search into evidence. Police who have experience with crime probably have a somewhat better perspective on the hows and whys of crime than you Joe Searchbot does.
So murder is "safe" but we must be protected from cumshots?
Yeah, it's hard to even feign surprise, but dammit, things are fucked up.
"What is Internet Explorer 7? Are you saying we can't access the normal internet?" - I love tech support. Really.
You just hit the nail on the head. If gamers shoot people in the face, why is it that there are hundreds of millions of gamers and only a handful of them have murdered someone...let alone by shooting them in the face.
One Question: when is Jack Thompson going to prison? His abuse of the legal system and profound negative influence on society has to end.
The surest sign that the litigation indust--, er, justice system in the US is broken is that this guy hasn't been disbarred yet.
Modern copyright is theft of culture from everyone and it retards the progress of the useful arts and sciences.
So what's our best defense against him? Frankly, I think the last thing Jack Thompson would want is to be ignored. He probably likes the animosity he's building with the gaming community, and he'll like making headlines many times more. Let's just ignore the fellow, and at some point he may start campaigning against diet sodas or the ulterior motives of figure skaters ("Nobody wears blades that sharp...unless they want to kill.").
Cue Lost, season 1:
"I was aiming for his heart."
"Well, you missed."
The only thing I can think of the OP referring to is the phenomenon where the bullet skims the cranium underneath the skin, popping out the other side and giving the victim a hell of a headache. Tends to happen with low-powered rounds that literally richochet off the skull. It's a freakish enough occurance that I doubt you'd avoid shooting someone in the head.
It is true, however, that self-defense courses do not teach to aim for the head; it's a small target, and you're not going for style points. I remember being asked, "When do you stop firing in a self defense situation?"
The answer? "When the magazine is empty."
In accordance with E.O. 12958, this post is marked Unclassified.
The man is ignorant, uncooperative, and a lawyer... but he can still be broken -- if he became disbarred, lost his fandom, and studies were released proving that there is no link between videogames and violence... that would be a fate for him worse than death.
No, if any of that happens, he will simply become a politician and run for Congress. He's a fanatic, and fanatics rarely back down, even when proved wrong. Look at all these Doomsday cults where the "leader" predicts the end of the world and miraculously, it never comes. Do their "followers" abandon them? No -- they believe the new tripe the leader makes up to explain why his prediction comes true. See? Same thing as politics...
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
This just in: While searching a murder suspects home police have come across various boxes containing data discs. These boxes are covered with violent imagery and words like "Hitman, Grand Theft Auto, and True Crime". While authorities have declined to comment on any connection, we here at the Associated Press feel that without the help of one Jack Thompson, the police officers would have completely overlooked such obscure and truly puzzling pieces of evidence and would have never drawn any connection between them and the suspects alleged violent behavior.
Also from TFA: "I think (the murder) goes beyond video games, but who's to say?," Dilworth commented, adding that the question of whether video games lead to youth violence might be "more of a debate for the living room rather than the courtroom."
Doesn't sound like the local police are too amused with Jack Thompson's "theories". Once again, this isn't news because the games that were siezed will play no role in the murder trial. The cops are like, "Yea we found M-rated video games, who cares? The kid confessed."
Jack Thompson is a crackpot and the only reason he gets any attention at all is because people see his name in an article and suddenly its a top story.
The problem is that if we (as gamers and other computer users) ignore him, he'll manage to convince people that he is right and we won't be there to provide the counterbalance.
We can't afford to ignore him, but we CAN afford to make as much fun of him as possible and make sure EVERYONE knows just exactly how preposterous everything he says is. This means everything from simple 'gamers have a tendency to copy their games' to 'gamers are evil, disgusting creatures that would as soon shoot you in the face as look at you' and everything in-between. His tamest-sounding speech is poison to the minds of anyone involved with law. Every single thing that he gets someone to believe is a blow to the freedom of gamers around the USA. (Luckily, he hasn't spread world-wide yet.)
We cannot afford to be lax because the only 'experts' in this field are us. If we ignore him, he gets to run rampant.
"If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
There was an "Addams Family" episode - the old black-and-white TV series - where Uncle Fester, in his outrage at someone, grabs his gun and announces his solution: "I'll shoot him in the back!"
In this episode, Morticia responds, "Now, now, Uncle Fester, you'll do no such thing."
"In the side?" suggests Fester.
"No," Morticia answers firmly. "We shall settle this issue through legal channels."
Fester looks doubtful. "Shooting's safer," he points out.
Sometimes I agree with Fester.
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
"Would you rather expose your kid to sexual themes, or murder themes?"
Both? I find that exposing my child to both allows me to make sure that my child has a mature understanding of the matter. I have never understood parents who thought that censoring life from their children would somehow magically result in them being BETTER able to cope when they encounter the censored aspects of life.
Life is life and kids will discover it, you can be upfront with it from the very beginning (sex is no more difficult for a children to cope with than any other bodily function at a very young age) or you can wait. Waiting presents a wonderful opportunity for thier 5 year old friends to share bad information and misunderstandings, parts or which may not be corrected for years. The older children are the less absolutely they trust their parents and the more they trust friends and other sources of information (the is especially true if parents have told them fairytales and censored their lives as young children). Those misunderstandings could even lead to deep set behavioral patterns since the primarily functions of the brain are still developing when the child learns this information.
As for violence. Humans are violent creatures. Children will discover violence even if they never saw any outside input. It is only a matter of time before they commit violent acts of their own based on instinct alone. This is again another opportunity to expose them and explain the truth of the world to them. You can argue that children shouldn't have to worry about serial rape and murder. I would counter that neither should you and I. That doesn't change that these things are a fact of life and my child is going to wary of the man trying to coax him or her into a car while your child will be ignorant of the danger.
Censoring what a child is exposed to is not doing that child a favor, it is promoting ignorance and false values.