Slashdot Mirror
Suit Blames Videogames for Homicides
An anonymous reader writes "Family members of three victims of a shooting by a 14-year-old have filed a $600 million lawsuit against the makers of Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. From the article: 'The $600 million lawsuit names several companies and Cody Posey, who it alleges played the game ''obsessively'' for several months before he shot his father, stepmother and stepsister in July 2004 ... The plaintiffs accuse the corporate defendants -- Sony Corporation of America, Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games -- of a civil conspiracy, saying they should have foreseen their entertainment would spawn such copycat violence.'" It may or may not be a coincidence that Jack Thompson is the plaintiff's attorney.
This suit has absolutely no chance of success. Apart from being naive in its entirety, it would go against many precedent cases.
"Sam Donaldson's New Mexico ranch sued the makers of the video game ''Grand Theft Auto: Vice City'' on Monday, claiming the crimes would not have occurred had the teenager never played the violent game."
He would never have shot them if he didn't have access to the gun either. Simply put, since gun makers aren't accountable for unintended actions carried out with their products, neither are game makers.
"The game trained him ''how to point and shoot a gun in a fashion making him an extraordinarily effective killer."
By that rationale, most action films would also be complicit in many homicides. This accusation has been thrown out of court so many times I won't even bother to cite individual cases.
"The plaintiffs accuse the corporate defendants [...] of a ''civil conspiracy,'' saying they should have foreseen their entertainment ''would spawn such copycat violence"
Again, gun and knife makers know their products can be used to commit homicides in the wrong hands yet can't be held accountable so neither can the game producers.
I'm sure however their lawyers - who probably strongly encouraged them to pursue the case - will still get paid regardless of the absolute certainty that the case will fail.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
The plaintiff's cousin's former roommate being the lawyer would be a coincidence. That someone doing what he normally does doens't consisitute a coincidence.
Too funny, when I clicked on this story, the add that came up on the right was for GTA: Vice City Stories. Just goes to show that no publicity is bad publicity...
Ok, so if the 14-year-old playing the rated "M" game (for those 17+) was playing obsessively for months, then I would argue that the fault lies with whomever was responsible for him. This sounds like the fault of parents/guardians to properly raise the child. Any child that plays ANYTHING obsessively (as in, to the exclusion of any other interests) clearly has some kind of mental/emotional problem and should have help sought for them.
Failure to parent and seek help cannot be blamed on Sony, Take-Two, Rockstar or anyone else. However, the direct consequences of allowing the child to continue to act in an obsessive manner can be blamed directly on parental negligence.
File for summary dismissal based on their own grounds for the suit.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Notice that it was a 13 year old, playing a mature rated game (17+). If anyone is at fault, it is the parents who let him play the game.
It may or may not be a coincidence that Jack Thompson is the plaintiff's attorney.
Zonk, would you cut it out with your pointless editorializing? We all know that Jack Thompson's involvement in suits like this has nothing to do with his irrational hatred of anything game-related.
The current batch of video games are nothing but an unspoken "plan" to desensitize youth to violence and killing with the hopes of creating better soldiers for the coming clash of the civilizations. The government will never let such suits go through.
I will now sue the alchohol companies for my drunk driving because I drank excessively for hours before I drove my car into an oncoming 18-wheeler. Morons.
Parents need to teach their children the difference between video games and reality. This is the fault of the parents, not the video game company.
Saying it may be a coincidence that Jack Thompson is involved in the case is like saying it may be a coincidence that the pope is Catholic.
Why not sue whoever was letting a 14 year old play a rated M game for hours on end? No, we must sue the ones with the most money instead. Great logic.
I'm suing the makers of T.R.O.N
who it alleges played the game ''obsessively'' for several months before he shot his father
Cody Posey probably also did other things on a regular basis ''obsessively'' for several months before he shot his father, such as eating, sleeping and using the bathroom. Are they naming fast-food restaurants, furniture retailers and plumbing merchants in the suit also?
Correlation != Causation.
Having said that, I noticed the following statement in the first post (above):
since gun makers aren't accountable for unintended actions carried out with their products, neither are game makers
Unintended actions? Guns have but one purpose - to fire bullets. You'd have to be pretty obtuse to claim that a gun shooting a bullet is an unintended purpose of a gun - hell, it's the only purpose.
Or rather, it's the stupid parents. Unless letting a kid play a violent video game "obsessively" for several months is good parenting this year. But I don't think so.
Nope, no sig
If we give their argument a benefit of the doubt and he the game taught him to do this, it still falls on parenting to limit is amount of time playing the game. Parents have an obligation to teach their kids morals, the difference of right and wrong, and general social skills among other things. If your son is playing any game an excessive amount, maybe it's time to take him out to the baseball field or footbal field or hunting or whatever. Teach him to be constructive at a young age.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
She stomps mushrooms, shoots fireballs, and has demolished at least a dozen of my nice barrels with a massively oversized hammer.
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
but I cant.. Jack Thompson is on the phone..
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them.
Back in the 50's did parents sue Clayton Moore for encouraging kids to play with guns? There has always been and always will be a certain group that attempt to shift the blame from parenting and personal responsibility to an "external influence". Since the Baroque era and most likely before pop culture has always been tagged as the cause of the decline of civilization. Where is the uproar over television, GTA is far less gory than the average episode of CSI. I've read many books with far more graphic violence. Those are accepted now since the old guard have lived with them most if not all of their lives. When we are all in our 60's and 70's video games will be ok and we will surely be bitching about something else new that we dont understand and see as a corruption of morality.
Yes, I'm sure that if some teenager goes on a homicidal rampage, its the game that was the problem. Surely this teenager would have been an outstanding law-abiding citizen otherwise.
It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.
Whoosh!
That's like sueing Poland Springs because all people with cancer have at some point drank water prior to the cancer manifesting itself.
I say go for it.
How long until our friend Jack looses his licence to practice law?
-jX
Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
This reminds me of a woman I met a few weeks back. She told me she plays WoW but that she doesn't get too far in the game because she refuses to kill anything with a humanoid shape. In essense if it walks on two legs, has two arms and a head centered on the upright torso she will not kill it.
She still enjoys the game, but she realises that she will never get too far. It's the same thing with GTA.
By the way, in GTA:San Andreas you get to fly a plane. Why haven't we seen an increase in plane thefts if GTA is such a good tutor? In the many Spider-man and Batman games we see characters seinging from roof to roof. Why have'nt we seen an increase in morons trying this if video games are like Jedi and have so much influence on the weak-minded?
We have always been at war with Eurasia!
Again, correlation != causation (how many time will we have to explain this to people?!)
It's just too easy to blame GTA because of the violent content. Would they be so quick to sue the video game makers if they had found out that he'd been obsessively playing "Barbie Fashion Designer" for six months before his psychotic break with reality?
Insisting on "correct" English is like saying that there is only one, definitive recipe for chili.
It's only a matter of time before Queen Elizabeth is assassinated by some bishop.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
When I read the headline the first thing I thought was "I'm sure Jack Thompson's involved somewhere in this thing".
Last time I checked, I've played quite a few hours of World of Warcraft and as of yet, I haven't had the urge to to cast an AOE on everybody in the cafeteria.
I wish I knew the day personal responsibility died, so I could mark is a day of rememberance.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
Anyone else seeing the GTA: Vice City Stories banner ad on the right of the summary?
I'd rather have someone respond than be modded up.
Where can I buy one of those real-world guns with a slightly clunky auto-aim feature?
++ Say to Elrond "Hello.".
Elrond says "No.". Elrond gives you some lunch.
How many times do we have to say this, Games Don't kill people, chuck norris does! I'm so tired of people blaming video games for their problems. What about societies problems, are they not the reason? the kid had easy access to a gun, and he was not forced to play the game. it is the responsibility of the parents to keep their kids in line, not of the video game makers, just cause 2 kids can't handle their killing urges means the other 2 billion people who can have to suffer? come on, let's get some common sense.
This is just another example of how ridiculous our legal system has become. This is entirely without merit. The 16 year old showed real signs of psychopathy or other organic disease. How can a game teach someone to shoot? Shooting in real life is far different. I hope the makers of GTA will defend this vigorously because it is a game. You want to blame someone . . . . look at the boy's parents as role models. If I were to let my son play such a game, I would be careful to explain the nature of the game and its implications in real life. There is one very real danger which is de-conditioning the natural human aversity towards killing. This is the exact reason that education must play a role alongside of playing the video game. I play GTA all the time as a stress reliever but I know that I would never do this in real life.
That I can't stop running after mushrooms. It's not bad when I go for a walk in the park, but it's hell in grocery stores and pizza places.
WTF doesn't someone sue the John Wayne estate and all the other cowboy and indian movie actors for the same thing. Watch how fast the Republicans jump in to stop this nonsense then.
slashdot troll = you make a compelling argument I do not like the implications of.
You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Could the editor have in mind scenarios like the following?
1) plaintiff blames videogame makers and seeks out a well known crusader against violent games to represent - jack thompson
2) plaintiff blames videogames makers and heads to their nearest lawyer who happens to be jack thompson, the well known crusader against violent games
in scenario 1 it is not a coincidence that Jack Thompson represents, in scenario 2 it is a coincidence that Jack Thompson represents the plaintiff.
As far as I can tell, the editor knows exactly what a coincidence is...parent doesn't have a clue. Read some books mate and you might understand english a bit better.
SURELY NOT!!!!!
Utter twaddle.
Might I suggest to any games industry personnel reading that they consult a lawyer as to whether the following is possible.
Jack Thompson has had such a negative effect on the games industry in general (through a continuous succession of lawsuits that have been costly to the industry, but importantly, repeatedly proven to be baseless). If at all possible, an injunction should be sought that forbids him from soliciting for any kind of legal representation involving the games industry, or for working on cases involving the games industry. Any such case discovered to be associated with Mr Thompson should immediately be thrown out of court and costs charged to Mr Thompsons team.
I doubt that it's legally possible, of course, but it would be satisfying.
Parents bring up a psychopath, psychopath kills parents. Sounds like problem solved to me. The fact that the rest of the "family" are taking advantage of the situation to sue a game producer speaks volumes.
Deleted
And on what grounds do they think they deserve $200 Million per deceased family member? I don't mean to be a dick, but I don't think that's a reasonable estimate of their value...
So, if someone is obsessed by guns and then goes on a shooting spree, should guns be banned?
It's easy, you just hold down the lock button, and then press the other buttons to cycle between targets. I'm not sure exactly where those buttons are on a real gun, but it shouldn't take long to find them.
I don't know how accurate this is,and I must admit I didn't RTFM, but I heard the kid was abused as a child.... yet nobody seems to have thought THAT could have some bearing on his mental state
flamebait? me? never.....
I see. So if he was 18 and on his own, it would have all been ok?
I find several things deplorable:
1. People love laying blame on ONE thing as the cause of something. The game isn't at fault, but it may have been somewhat of a contributing factor. I know when I used to play some of those cockpit racing games at a Dave and Buster's, when I got in my car it felt a little weird. Gamers want to say that games have no impact on what a person does, but I think they do. So do movies, music, advertisements, etc. If they had no impact, then these things wouldn't exist. They have positive and negative IMPACTS. But they aren't the sole cause of anything.
2. That violent games like these are so popular. I loved Quake, and Half-Life, etc. They were violent as hell. But I wasn't obsessed with them. I hate the fact that our society is obsessed with violence as entertainment. Just stop and look around. I may be a small part of it, and I am not suggesting that getting rid of these video games will solve it. It just kind of disturbs me when I step back and look at it. I guess when you glorify war, and turn a blind eye to the reality of it, there isn't much else you can expect.
3. Our legal system, and what it has done to our society. Dispicable. It has tainted people to the point where nobody is willing to admit any fault with anything, for fear of being sued. The maker of these games can't say "yeah, ok, it is a pretty ruthless and violent game. But we certainly aren't responsible for this kid's actions." They have to say "We have a sticker on it! He shouldn't have been playing it anyway. It has no influence on people... Where were his PARENTS! It is their fault, not ours."
4. All of these reasons roll together nicely into one package - and nobody will sincerely mention that this is a tragedy, and people were needlessly killed. See items 1 - 3.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
I was under the impression that Americans were shooting each other centuries before Sony was formed.
Music is everybody's possession.
It's only publishers who think that people own it.
Fuck Beta
~John Lenno
As Chris Rock put it, cant you be crazy no more?
This is not my sig
''But for Posey's use of these products ... he would not have killed,'' the lawsuit claims.
Could the same not be said, of the weapon used?
What is the ESRB rating on that game anyway?
And this is why a -1 wrong moderation is required.
He was being sarcastic.
"the devil made me do it"
where the devil is alternately books, television, movies, videogames, etc.
it's a simple ploy to avoid personal responsibility
you would think that social conservatives like thompson, such great champions of the concept of personal accountability, would understand that, but they obviously don't
the point is, if you take a well-adjusted person, and a wackjob pre-disposed to violent behavior, a whole number of things can set off the pre-disposed individual. it in fact could be a video game. but it could also be a stare from a stranger, a barking dog next door, or bad relationship with a coworker. meanwhile, the well-adjusted person can play videogames for 8 hours a day, for 12 months straight, and not come a hair's breadth closer to committing a violent act
i mean i must have played doom in the early '90s in my formative years for hours on ends, weeks at a time, and i'm pro-gun control
go figure, right?
not at all: me, as well as 99.9999% of the population, know the difference between fantasy and reality
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
"Sir, could you tell me how a 14 year old was able to obtain a game not rated for his age group?" "Cha-ching! sorry.. what? video games? Oh, I bought that game for him. Wasn't my fault. I didn't it'd make him shoot me. I'm utterly devastated, (to the amount of $600m)."
This kills me. Every time a kid commits a violent crime, someone tries to blame it on music or video games or some other entertainment source. How about THE PARENTS? If you are going to have a child; you have to take responsibility for there actions. If you mistreat or neglect your them and he/she decides to shoot several of there classmates; you need to take responsibility for some or all of there actions. The courts need to start throwing some of these people in jail and see through the obvious smoke screens that these people are using to divert blame from themselves.
My son has been "obsessively" been playing Dark Age of Camelot for 4+ years (since he was 12). I'd better not wake up some morning in a 'shroom field....damned chanters.
Of course the PARENTS THEMSELVES are not at all at fault for allowing their kid to become a homicidal maniac, right?
Ignoring that the attourney is Jack-'I wont actually dontate to charaity even though I said I would neener-neener-neener'-Thompson :
.. lets face it .. the kid probably came from a shitty homelife in the first place, giving him a LOT more [to a kid] justifiable reasons to kill his family than playing video games.
.. but chances are .. any homelife that will alow him to 'obsessivly' play a video games for 2-3 days straight .. well .. lets just say there are already issues there.
caviet: I am under the assumption that 'obsessivly playing for 55 hours' is in a few close together sessions, not spread out over 8 months.
One might just question exatly *WHAT* kind of a home life would allow a kid to play an ultra-violent video game for 55 hours in a two day period.
I mean
Maybe no one was HOME for a few days. Maybe he was abused. who knows
just my question on the matter.
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
Um... wasn't this case already dramatized on Boston Legal?
i - This sig provided by
Grand Theft Auto didn't give him access to the gun.
Grand Theft Auto didn't make him hate his family.
Grand Theft Auto didn't let a 14 year old kid play an M-rated game.
I'm sure that kid watched lots of movies and TV, and listened to lots of music also, even if he was "obsessed" with the game. Why not try to sue the people who made the TV shows, Movies, and Music that he liked, too?
While you're at it, sue his school for not teaching that murder is wrong.
According to the corporations' lawyers, these families watched the show The Practice "obsessively" for several months, and were given the false impression that you can sue anyone for anything and make it an enjoyable and profitable time for all.
They have hinted they may sue ABC again on behalf of same corporations afterwards. They claim that ABC gave them the idea to sue ABC by airing The Practice, which the lawyers also watch "obsessively," casuing them to sue ABC, resulting in financial damage to the corporations in the form of lawyers' fees.
No word yet about whether or not they would sue a third time to recoup the fees incurred during the second suit.
Lather, rinse, repeat.
OP: Missed the sarcasm of the summary.
Parent to this post: Missed the sarcasm of the summary, and then blasted the OP for not knowing what coincidence is.
I say, it's no coincidence that two posters who both don't get sarcasm have a giant bug up their bum that forces them to correct people's mistakes even when no mistake exists.
All I gotta say is: read some non-technical books, pal, and you might just understand what sarcasm is.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
If the kid didnt have access to a gun how likely is it that he would have done this? I say zero chance.
They would have sued the parents of the child, but the parents don't have $600 million.
If you believe that firearms manufacturers are liable for deaths caused by murderers, then blaming video game manufacturers (publishers) for actions taken by those who use their product is a logical corolary. Of course, then we should also sue the auto makers for the deaths caused by drunk drivers.
Unless you inject the notion of personal responsibility into the dialog, the final destination is a world where physical objects have intent and people have none. Or, more accurately, the creator of an object becomes responsible for all uses of that object in perpetuity. Finally, anyone who creates ANYTHING becomes responsible for the ills of this world; couch-bound slugs who do nothing and achieve nothing are blameless.
Sounds like fun to me.
Syncerus
"Man is nothing without the works of man" -- Helvetius
So basically we should have Psych evaluations before someone purchases a game. That way the people that are messed up won't get the messed up games. Yeah, we should do that for music, guns, and other things that "may" cause people harm.
Scott Carr
I've decided to climb a clock tower and take out half my hometown with a sniper rifle. I never would've done this if Jack Thompson didn't do what he does. As such, he is completely responsible for the deaths I cause.
I wish for the time when society wakes up and realizes that a person should be held responsible and accountable for their own actions. ...or could it have been the media attention towards other such heinous acts?
It was his choice - a bad one - but he ultimately decided to do what he did.
Was the influence GTA?
Doesn't matter; he made the choice.
Yeah right. I'm sure that it is the fault of a videogame maker rather than crappy parents. No, it couldn't possibly be due to poor parenting skills, especially considering that millions of other people play violent videogames every day and don't pull that crap.
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
P2P networks have been sucessfully shut down because of the actions of the users of their networks.
Don't expect precedent to count for anything anymore.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
Interesting piece at http://gamepolitics.com/2006/09/26/youthful-killer s-lawyer-doesnt-buy-gta-made-me-do-it-defense/ about the case.
Thompson already tried to make Cody Posey's defender put the blame on GTA. But he did not go for the "GTA made him do it" defense, but went for the physical and sexual abuse Cory suffered from.
Quote:
Other witnesses testified that Delbert Posey crushed Cody's fingers with a pair of pliers and held a hay hook to his groin. Cody told the court that on the night before the murders his father tried to make him have sex with his stepmother and burned him with a heated metal rod when he refused.
Nevermind, it is the games!!!1!
Surely it's the parent's responsibility for letting their kid play GTA? Not sure about in America, but in the UK 14 year olds aren't supposed to be sold games like Grand Theft Auto, even although no one cares about the age ratings, shouldn't the place where he purchased/aquired the game be in trouble too?
- Video games have taught me -
How to effectively wield: knifes, swords, shields, heavy armor, maces, axes, staves, pole arms, bows, crossbows, slingshots, boomerangs, bug catching nets, nunchucks, ninja stars, pistols, sniper rifles, automatic weapons, missile launchers, grenade launchers, bombs, railguns, plasma weapons, BFGs, gravity guns, personal teleporters, chainsaws, hookshots, and many other things.
How to ride/drive/pilot: horses, skateboards, surfboards, snowboards, hoverboards, motorcycles, race cars, helicopters, commercial jets, fighter jets, tanks, jetskis, boats, hovercraft, Arwings, X-Wings, A-Wings, B-Wings, Tie Fighters, and the USS Enterprise 1701. To name a few.
Use of the following skills: magic, psyonics, alchemy, dancing, singing, proficiency with musical instruments, the Force, hacking, martial arts, military tactics, espionage, mining, medical skills, and legal skills.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
GTA is notorious. If the kid was playing it obsessively, his parents must have seen the nature of the game. Their child was sinking deeper into disturbed weirdness and they didn't care.
I hope the defendants will make the point that perhaps the child's father, stepmother, and stepsister "deserved it."
We're all used to it by now. Something is wrong with me/society, so who/what is to blame? Of course, myself/us is ALWAYS last on that list and the answer will ALWAYS be, "A lack of a basic moral compass."
I grew up playing Wolfenstien 3D, Doom/Heretic/Quake etc. Admittedly, those are violent games (especially in their own time). I even obtained a copy of my school's blue prints (unthinkable today) so I could make a Doom map of it allowing my friends and I to frag eachother at 'school'. However, throughout my entire gaming experience, I NEVER ONCE had the desire to turn the virtual world into reality (reality into the virtual world, yes). I can't remember a single time when I felt a real desire to inflict violence on others in real life (beyond the feign adolescent "I'm so mad I could kill someone" attitude). Why? Because I also grew up being taught a basic set of morals. For me this was done via my parents and church. However, in my group of friends (remember all fragging eachother in our virtual school) there were members of several faiths and also atheists. Each of us had parents who took the time to instill in their children a basic set of morals.
Now, if the answer is so simple why is it always at the end of the list? Because it requires more effort, and long term attention, than hiring a lawyer and filing a suit. It's sad to see the Blame Game used every time there is a personal/social crisis because all the meanwhile people miss the most obvious, and most effective, answer--teaching your kids basic morals.
Faith is a willingness to accept something w/o complete proof and to act on it. Reason allows you to correct that faith.
We had to play Mortal Kombat (blood code enabled) in secret since my friend's mom saw an expose on the horrible violence that was in the game. They never batted an eye to the fact that we played Doom 2 for 4-5 hours a night, every night of the summer for about 3 years.
in large quantities?
Some people are just born with a screw loose. So let's sue the parents, after all, they made this person.
This is a way for the families to intimidate game makers into not making violent games. They figure if a game company thinks they'll get sued to kingdom come for making the game, they just won't make it.
Since the demented kid's family left the unstable kid alone playing that violent game for so long, especially while everyone is talking about how it might help broken people over the edge into acting out violence in real people, the whole crazy affair really looks like a complicated method of mass family suicide.
There oughtta be a law. Oh, there is? Who can we sue?
--
make install -not war
Attention, Rocky Horror Fans -- start playing GTA!
I mean, how else could you play 55 hours of games in a 2-day period, without some sort of time warp / time machine.
The most of any activity I have ever been able to squeeze into a 2-day period was right around 48 hours.
Or did playing GTA make these people bad at math as well?
What is a 14 year old doing playing a game that is clearly rated for adults? Maybe the parents should have been regulating their child rather than relying on the industry to do it for them. Why aren't they simply the parents of the 14-year old?
Society is not responsible for bringing up your children. YOU are responsible for regulating what your kids can and cannot do. YOU are responsible for teaching them the difference between right and wrong. YOU are responsible for making sure they know the difference between what you can do in fantasy worlds (eg video games) and reality.
for your actions.
Raise your own kids, don't expect to get rich over this
-- I am the NRA, enough said...
As I posted on my blog, if you look around the courtv site, you see lots of coverage of Cody Posey's case. During a police interview Posey claimed his father forced him to have sex with his step-mother and during the trial testified that his father has emotionally and physically abused him for years. So Thompson is arguing that playing videogames is more dangerous than child abuse.
Looking at the details of the case,and reading between the lines, it basically seems that the father's side of the family denies all the abuse charges and wanted Cody Posey sentenced as an adult, while the mother(birth mother, not step-mother) and her side believes all the abuse charges and wanted Cody Posey sentenced as a minor. He got sentenced as a minor, so the father's side is basically mad about it.
The lawsuit is a wrongfull death suit against Cody himself as well as Take 2. Therefore, it seems certain that Cody's mother's side of the family will be pushing the abuse angle heavilly. Therefore, I can't imagine that this suit will actually even get to talking about videogames. I imagine that it will be mainly about excrusiating detail about the abuse.
Moreover, Sanders, the lawyer in New Mexico who is actually trying the lawsuit does not seem to be associated with a large law firm, so a) if it does actually focus on videogames, it will be Sander and Thompson against an army of corporate lawyers and b) the research I found about Sanders indicates that he is mainly a contract lawyer which doesn't seem so great of a choice for such a lawsuit.
Jack is in way over his head and is caught in between this battle between the father's family and the mother and her family. I'm really tempted to think that Jack chose this case specifically so that he could get a bunch of publicity and then when the case starts and focuses on the abuse, he can pull a New Orleans move and back away blaming family for not telling him about the abuse and accusing the horrible big law firm of ganging up on little old him.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
We need /. to get Jack Thompson to agree to a /. questioning.
I want to know why he even bothers... all he seems to be doing is making a worse name for himself every time he shows up. I kinda wonder what he has to say in his defence of these seemingly foolish lawsuits.
Help test the
"No chance" eh? I love how Slashdot commenters seem to know everything about the law. Nobody knows if this suit has a chance or not until it gets before a judge. Where's your law degree from, malsdavis?
... which won't happen unless they think they have a reasonable case.
At first glance, it looks like the plaintiffs are not wealthy people, so it's reasonable to think lawyers are likely working on contingency. If so, they don't get paid unless they either win or can force a settlement
And it's fairly easy to construct an argument for the other side. In GTA, the player is encouraged to commit violent acts, and rewarded for it (e.g., by scoring points, moving on in the game, etc.). This is quite a bit different from a movie, in which the observer is passive and gains no reward for any simulated act. Indeed, in GTA the player is perfectly free to commit no crime, drive under the speed limit, walk only on the sidewalks, etc., but the game designers have been very careful to explicitly discourage that form of gameplay.
And it's interesting that you bring up gun manufacturers. Say Smith & Wesson distributed a copy of GTA with every handgun, in an envelope marked "Example uses of our product". If Rockstar was aware of this, it is very hard to believe that either S&W or Rockstar would escape liability for the resulting harm. Now say handguns and GTA were always sold in the same stores, in adjacent aisles -- probably the same story, because people would get the same idea as if they were distributed together. So a weaker argument would be that GTA, plus easy access to handguns, leads to Rockstar's responsibility for the ensuing consequences.
Not a bulletproof argument (pun intended), but would you bet your company that this argument would lose in court? If so, please tell me what comany you work for so I can divest my portfolio.
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
after putting tens if not hundreds of hours into the pilot training to get all gold medals, I now have my pilots license in real life.
Why stop at the game maker, lets include the gun maker, probably ebay or amazon who he bought the game from, Hanes since his underwear must not have been giving the right support, and then lets sue the maker of the TV that he played the game on because it did not make the game real enough so he had to go try it out for real. I hate lawyers that do this. They make American look like idiots. Wait, I guess most of us are...(shaking head)
Redundant I am sure by now, but this just pisses me off my fault for even bothering to look at the headline... >:-/
Lets face Little Timmy "played the game ''obsessively'' for several months before he shot his father, stepmother and stepsister in July 2004." Someone from "Sony Corporation of America, Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games" should have come into the house to straighten out Little Timmy. I mean Little Timmy's parents don't have any responsiblity in his upbring.
Back in the 80's, when the capitol hill wives' club was blaming music for all the ills of society, the complaint was that music needed a rating system like the movies. That way, parents could be informed about what their kids were listening to.
I'm sure the same rationale was made about video games. Parents need to be informed. They led us to believe that if these had ratings, the world would be a better place. No more kids killing themselves, no more violence, sex or drugs.
I guess it's apparent now how wrong they were. So what's the solution now? Ban the games altogether! Parental responsibility is sooooo passe! Ratings and restrictions aren't the solution because they won't change bad parenting. If the parents are going to ignore warnings, ratings, and just sit there while their child is obsessing over a game he's obviously not mature enough to understand, then they deserve the blame.
My parents are boomers, and it's apparent to me that theirs was the last generation with any parenting skills. Subsequent generations never really grew up for the most part, and they now raise their children as a child would. They selfishly refuse to change their life to raise a child and think they can still go on partying/being absorbed in work as if they were single.
In other words, "adults only"? So why did the 14 year old have access to the game altogether? Is it the fault of the game or the fault of the parents that t...
what?
Oh, the parents are dead and are the victims of the shooting? Right, can't blame them, they already ARE dead, and you can't milk a dead cow, and certainly not for money. So we gotta find another scapegoat. Sorry, my bad.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
He would kill a bunch of Jews and blame it on video games. Video games is just a scapegoat for killers just like rock n roll was in the 70's and 80's. I've been playing video games for 15 years and I've yet to kill anyone [at least that can be proven ;)]. In fact I've become a vegan, but I wouldn't thank video games for that just like I wouldnt blame video games if I did something bad. I would blame myself instead.
Can I bum a sig?
How long would you have to play GTA: Vice City to make $600 million?
This sig is exempt from disclosure under the privacy Act of 1974.
Forget that he was playing a video game. Can somebody tell me exactly how the 14 year old acquired the gun? If you want to blame the parents for anything, i'd blame them for that.
Strangely enough, this is the shirt i'm wearing today.
If I left my kid alone to watch slasher movies and Ted Bundy documentaries ad nauseum, should I be surprised when he starts mimicking the behavior? If I allow my kid to visit chat rooms without occasional supervision or education, should I be surprised if a pedophile tries to introduce him or herself?
I realize that parents want their kids to be happy, but you're their parent, not the birthday clown trying to entertain them. Sometimes you just have to be a bastard for their own good.
Nope, no sig
It is high time somebody introduced Mr. Thompson to Rule 11.
"If Pacman had affected us as kids we'd be running around in dark rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive music."
wait...
In all seriousness, I have never once decided to grab a sword and try to find the princess, I have never wanted to be a plumber that eats mushrooms to get "big" and save the princess, nor have I had the desire to kill the "Mother Brain" in attempt to save the prin... err escape.
---In a time of Chimpanzees I was a Monkey.
I hate that these days parents are by no means accountable for their childs actions. To this, I think that Rockstar should counter sue the parents for parental negligence in allowing their 14 year-old son play a game that is rated M for Mature (17+ years of age). On top of this, I think Rockstar should also ask who actually PURCHASED this game for their son. I'm betting there's a good chance that the parents are 100% to blame for their childs actions. I'm sure that the killings were caused by this video game and were by no means assisted by shitty parenting.
Suits like this can only be compared to people suing Gun Companies, Cigarette and Car Manufacturers for deaths caused by their products.
The kid in this case was physically, emotional and sexually abused. Naturally none of these had anything to do with the killing.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
"Have you ever tried simply turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Ya know, I played that same game obsessively. In Grand Theft Auto, I religiously ran over pedistrians with my car, attacked police officers and the elderly with little discrimination, hired prostitutes and then killed them to get my money back after getting my full value from them, blew up masses of people with a rocket launcher from atop a parking garage, stole a tank, and stole an army helicopter. Yet amazingly, none of that has translated to real life. Perhaps because I have the ability to differentiate between real world and games...perhaps because my parents instilled within me good moral values. Who knows. In truth, the parents HAVE to be blamed. My 14 year old won't be playing GTA....well, when I have a 14 year old he won't be playing GTA. There's a reason the game is rated M. Mature. 14 is not Mature. Mature means that you understand the difference between reality and video games. If you don't qualify in that category, well, your parents should be aware of that, and not allow you play such games. Granted, I will say that retailers should be held more accountable for selling games such as GTA to minors....but parents should do their research before purchasing a game for their kids, as well. The rest of this family seems to paint a good picture, however. They are probably upholding the "blame corporate America" philosophy that was so advocated by their departed. I'm sure it'd be horrible if something like this happened within my family, but I'll never know, as we hold ourselves responsible for what we, as well as those we are accountable for, do. Parents need to do their damn jobs, I hope that the family loses this suit, and bad.
Annyong!
Wait ... I thought that game proved that dogs were impervious to guns?
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Did you have easy access to weapons as a child? You had the video game and didn't shoot anyone, but the weapon access seems to be the part that is frequently forgotten.
The parents were held fully accountable for thier childs behaviour.
Personally I think their punishment was a little severe as one should not be punished for the behaviour for another.
The article suggests the kid killed his abusive parents. Unfortunate for the sister, but if she was older she should have stopped the abuse too.
I consider hitting a child because they aren't working fast enough ridiculous.
While their at it they should sue the Utility company that provided electricity to their domicile so that the game could be run. What a joke!
No, seriously, blame the idiot parents who bought their 14 year old kid a game clearly labled Mature and in which the title itself is the name of a fellony. With a name like Grand Theft Auto, did they think it would be about a nice man who races cars and teaches yoga in his spare time? Honestly, there is no content in the GTA series designed for, or fit for anyone under 18.
This kid was 14 so of course content that rough would warp his brain. Most video game vendors in my area won't sell Rated M games to minors without a parent. If the family actually thought this a real concern they should have taken the game away. I personally enjoy the GTA series but I don't even put it in the Playstation until my kid is in bed. When I am not playing my rated M games they get locked up in the safe. That is why the "Hot Coffee" incident made me mad. Anyone too young to see animated porn should really not be playing at carjacking and killing people with golf clubs, guns, swords, flamethrowers, or cars.
Neglectful parents unwilling to take an interest in their child's activities are just asking for trouble. Just like parents need to monitor what movies their kids watch, games need to be paid attention to and the content discussed. If you are unwilling to educate yourself you don't deserve to reproduce.
Then again, how about just blaming the abusive father...
No animals were harmed in the making of this sig.
Well, there was that one puppy, but he is all better now.
Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd taught me that if I stick my finger into the barrel then I can't get shot.
(Warning: Offensive language)
http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/1999/04/14
I don't think it can only work one way. If art and literature is important because it can convey powerful messages then it is only logical that it convey powerful negative messages.
Precisely, and this is why I think we should rid finally ourselves of Wagner, whose #1 fan was, after all, Adolf Hitler.
(Godwin's Law, yada yada. Can we move on now?)
The thing that I'm not understanding is. What possessed him to shoot his parents and sibiling? There always has to be a motive. If I kill someone in GTA:VC, it's to get some cash from the pimps and car from from an elderly lady. Maybe poppin a cap in some cops ass, because he's got a problem with my small wants. So did this 14 yr old kill his pimp father for some money. Did he knock off his stepsister cause he knocked her up? Or was his stepmother really the succubus all claimed? A video game is not a motive, it would be a weapon.
where the player murders his family, drags the bodies outside to bury them in a manure pile with a tractor?
Jack Thompson is the plaintiff's attorney
We're talking about a guy who once got kicked off of Free Republic for being too much of a loony, which is kind of like being kicked out of an anarchist convention for disorderly conduct.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
Sweet links dude! Mod parent up!
You hear about this shithead lawyers all the time, but never hear of the Bar associations doing stuff about them. Nice to see actually... Fantastic links...
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I am sorry, but have you ever actually fired a hand gun before? I know from experience that they are not magic point and shoot play toys. More often than not if you fired a semi-auto the way they do on movies and tv, the slide would come back putting a nice H shaped cut straight into the area between your thumb and pointer finger. Also, guns are not easy for a person to just pick up and shoot with out having used one before because they are not light. Right now go find something between 4-8 lbs, because you would like to simulate a loaded gun, and hold it one handed (like in all the neat movies) for a few moments. Now do you honestly believe that you could shoot something with any accuracy if you have not done it before? Still don't believe me, go to a gun range with a .45 or the all popular 9mm and shoot targets 20 or more feet away and see how well you do.
Tim
Are you a moron? The money that allows for a defense in firearms related cases almost entirely comes from donations by private citizens. There is no magical source of money to protect firearms manufacturers. They simply do not sell enough product. Conversely, Sony and Rockstar have made an incredible amount of money on the GTA games; far more than the average firearms manufacturer does on the average firearm or class of firearm involved in litigation. Further, they have a monetary support base through the diversity of products which they sell (e.g. display sales will be supporting this lawsuit). This is not true of firearms manufacturers who by-in-large sell only one type of product.
I wish I could mod you up for this one. :)
If it did not help train to fight.
Let me lay in with my experiences with gaming and how they IMPROVED my life and helped me see a worlds beyond the closed walls I lived in for 16 years of my life.
My mother was, and is still unfortunately mentally unstable. She became increasingly so as she grew older. She didn't have the skills or the capacity to take care of me, her two sisters and ailing mother on her side. Unable to coupe with work and what it took to take care of a child she kept me locked in my room when I wasn't required to go to school. She, on many occasions tried to take me out of school, and it was only at the behest of school officials and councilors, and my own force of will that I was able to come back and finish high school.
Being someone well under the poverty line, single with a child, with 3 other people living in the same roof, government money rained in. Every way money could be fleeced from the welfare department, family children services, my estranged father was used. Which should have been a life line. It should have paid for school, college, doctors, and necessities. But being someone in her diminished capacity she squandered the money on collectibles from her youth, a house well beyond she could afford, and new cars. The one thing she did for me is kept me occupied, and the best way to do that in the late 80's through the 90's was with gaming systems. I had every system the day of release and a large library of games. I also eventually got a computer with Internet access.
And that's what saved me. Where I come from, there's close to no jobs, no good schools, and almost no growth. The majority of people extort welfare and usually turn to drugs and theft to get by. Being manager of a Sonic's or McDonald's is a big thing around here. Outside of that the only thing you can be is a nurse at the local hospital (Phoebe is the largest private real estate owner and only truly successful business in the region, other manufactures are all shutting down or not hiring) or join the Marines. Ask anyone from here and they'll all tell you the same thing, you don't get anything out of life, you'll never leave town, and you shouldn't try. Above all, you should never try, you just waste the energy it takes to get up in the morning to go to crummy job to get by.
All of those people grew up in almost the same environment, whether it was substance abuse, or general poverty, one way or another their parents and household was broken with few exceptions. But all of those people just feed the cycle. They drop out, they smoke weed, they have kids before their 21, they work at Burger King, they hate their life.
But I didn't, and you know why. Because when Crono, Marle, and Lucca found Lavos bringing the world to an end in the future, they didn't go Well shit, life's a bitch. and went home and smoked crack. I wanted to go to school, watched the History Channel, and used the Internet to learn (and, gasp, didn't look up porn all day). Why? Because Snake knew 6 languages, had a vast knowledge of culture and history, and was a motherfucking bad ass. I wanted to be that bad ass. Anyone who wishes they could be Solid Snake should know what Manhattan means. And after I finished school I've worked non-stop to start my own business, which is about to come to fruition instead of sticking with some shithole job, I've spent my time and money working for something that will pay off better in the long run. And take a guess why? Because Tommy Vercetti did that's why. He didn't take lip from anyone who was in his way, he didn't do drugs, and above all let anything get in the way of what he needed to do to climb to the top.
Games did more than give me good role models when there wasn't any at hand ether. If it weren't for video games I wouldn't have been exposed to classical music, and would have been stuck with this watered down rap and rock companies push on us these days. I wouldn't have learned how to read and write as fast as I did without a hands-on parent. I wouldn't have been exposed to a plethora
I think this lawsuit is innappropriate and silly. Let me play Jack's advocate for a minute.
Suppose a situation exists that gives another person a strong incentive to kill you. If you could go back in time; what one movie, book, and video game would you pick for that person to have during his childhood?
I'm pretty sure we wouldn't pick GTA for the game.
-Dave
It would be impossible for me to shoot or stab or bomb another human being and even attempting to do so would make me sick to my stomach.
I used to think, back when I was a small, angelic child, that I could never punch someone. Then this kid kept pestering me, and he got a fist to the forehead, knocked him on his ass.
It's a question of when push comes to shove... I never seeked out agression, but when it came, it found me unwilling, but quite able.
Violence in video games and movies does NOT desensitize you to violence in the real world.
In fact, I think that violent movies and games are usefull in reducing agressive tendencies, through catharsis.
When I'm stressed out, and I feel like dragging jerks out of their cars and forcing them to swallow their turn-signal levers, a good violent flick will calm me down. Then I can drive and tolerate the ubiquitous stupidity for another day.
You can't take the sky from me...
Oops wrong games, Someone needs to help Jack Thompson out of his misery. Doesnt he realize law'yers can make money in other ways? Why he puts himself through this loser battle, again and again,just baffles me. What kind of sodom and gomorrah does he seem to think he needs to buy with all that money if he ever wins or settles one of these cases.
That would certainly make sense, were it true. Unfortunately, common sense is all but dead in this country, buried under too many ideological struggles.
However, the same sort of reasoning that's letting folks legislate away violent video games has also been used -- and frankly I'd argue was brought to near-perfection by -- the anti-gun lobby in its crusade to drive gun manufacturers into bankruptcy. After all, if you can't make something illegal by way of the legislative branch (democracy is such a pain in the ass, isn't it?), well there's always tort law.
Basically, the various anti-gun groups, assisted by the Attorneys General of various cash-strapped locales, attempted to do exactly what you're claiming is so ridiculous: take firearms manufacturers to court and win huge judgments against them, because of the ways that their legitimate products had been misused by criminals.
To be quite frank, except that the pro-gun lobby in the U.S. is better funded and better organized than the anti-gun one, I think they probably would have been successful; and from there, it's nothing but a downward slide into the pit of strict liability. If you thought that there were an obscene number of warning labels and disclaimers on products now, when you remove any sense of logic for placing blame for an incident on the person who actually made the choice to commit the crime, and instead just get judgments from anyone whose products or services might have been even peripherally involved, I can only imagine we'd end up living in a world of soft rubber hammers, dull knives, and safety scissors.
The only reason that the firearms industry didn't get itself ruined by such "strict liability" nonsense, is because (principally through the efforts of the NRA and its members) Congress passed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, which prevents suits from being brought against a legitimate firearms manufacturer for relief against harm committed by others.
The problem is that video game companies don't have friends like the NRA, at least not yet. They also don't have the public goodwill and support that firearms do. A whole lot of people will show up at the polls if the vote is going to significantly impact their ability to own or buy guns -- more than a few elected officials have ended up on the wrong side of some issue, and found themselves out of office. Like it or not, it's a major political force. And why shouldn't it be -- it has 4.3 million members and has been around in various incarnations for over a hundred years (although admittedly its role as a PAC doesn't date back that far). There is nothing close to that scale to protect the rights of computer users or gamers, although the EFF is probably the most likely candidate and they do try hard. But they're just not big enough yet.
Frankly, I think we need something like the PLCAA universally. The doctrine of strict liability has gone too far, and it's too dangerous to let go unchecked. Suits like this could easily have bankrupted and paralyzed an entire industry (they were meant to), and it's not as though they could only be brought against gun companies. We need protections like this across the board. If you manufacture and sell your product in compliance with the laws of the United States, and a do not attempt to actively mislead consumers or hide the risks of using a product from them, so that a reasonable consumer acting with reasonable prudence, could learn the risks of the product if they chose to care, then you should be exempted from liability springing from that individual's misuse of your product, if they end up harming themselves or others.
People need to start taking responsibility for their own actions. They shouldn't
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
They should rename their suit "Grand Theft Lotto" and hope they hit the jackpot.
Is there no legal precedence that prevents a lawyer from constantly trying to attempt the same lawsuit again and again? I realize if the plantiff hires them, fine. However, it seems he involves himself basically (if not start the suit outright). How can this not be viewed as an abuse of the system. It is not like he going after different issues. He is just waiting for his lightening to strike, in this case a judge and jury who agrees with "video games causes violence". Just curious.
for that one time I got drunk and broke my hand trying to punch a brick so coins would pop out of it?
http://nerdcartoons.com/
How about slashdot?
:)
;p
the ad next to the article is for GTA
Here's hoping they win
I have been playing Flatout everyday for weeks, would be nice if it wasn't my fault for taking out 8 cars, 4 telephone poles, a barn and a front porch on my way to work one of these days
Since they sold like a million copies shouldn't all the poles be knocked down by now?
shesh
And since when did they include a real gun in the box ?!?
Which one of those companies gave a gun to an unstable 14 year-old obsessed with violent video games?
Get a grip jack
They must be stopped! They've been on a rampage! Running throught the streets killing on a whim! Last night I was jumped in a dark alley by a video game carrying a club! I was fortunate that someone heard my screams and stopped the game with a portable three-finger-salute weapon!
PGA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cody_Posey
An interesting thing the story fails to mention is that at one point in time the shooter was in a car accident where he watched his mother die. Later he suffered from post traumatic stress disorder. Also he was abused, came from a broken home and had been in the custody of several people since he had a completely broken dysfunctional family life...but yeah, GTA fucked him up.
The sad thing is Jack Thompson claims to be for family values but he lets his personal vendetta against video games cloud his near to none existent mind to the point of completely overlooking the real moral issues.
"...Rockstar Games -- of a civil conspiracy, saying they should have foreseen their entertainment would spawn such copycat lawsuits."
FFS - I know these people have got to be pissed, and it saddens me that they have lost their children - but jumping on the bandwagon to sue whoever the media has most recently pointed the "bad thing" finger at just to try and get 600 million dollars is flat out BS, and shows just how little they actually know about the things that are a part of today's culture.
I know this is a dead horse, but kids don't learn behaviors from video games unless there is a complete absense of parental role model. If mom and dad aren't around, yes, kids can fill that role with anything - violence, sex, drugs, anything that stimulates. Chances are better than worse the kid's gonna find a bad role model and follow it. Squelching entertainment isn't going to fix a damn thing. The solution is better parenting, not trying to isolate children from the concept of violence.
You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
They're suing the wrong people. They should be suing the kid's parents for allowing him to be in possession of an 18 rated game.
So he shot his parents after playing GTA. You mean he played GTA, got a gun, and shot his parents. He shot the very people who were responsible for ensuring that he didn't play violent games, and didn't get access to a gun.
Seems fair to me....bad parenting should be a capital offense. It's just too bad he killed the girl too.
remember those copy cat crimes stemming from movies? around 10 years back, I remember it was all over the media about how someone copied the movie Money Train in their violent act. In the movie, a person went to a subway station and poured gasoline into the ticket booth and set fire to the operator, and someone did the exact same thing in real life. There was lots of blame for violent movies on that one, but I don't remember any lawsuits.
Don't trust a bull's horn, a doberman's tooth, a runaway horse or me.
It's the way he has made a name for himself, although truth be told, if you read some of his publically available responses, I really wonder why anybody bothers to hire him. They are filled with childish accusations, incorrect grammer, and just blatant rumormongering. What he should really do is file a suit against the NRA for their support of a gun in every hand. See how far that will get him.
To tell them it isn't there fault is to take away thier humanity. - but if the fault isn't there, then where is it? There is a fault there whether they like it or not, their ideas of who is at fault is their priority, there is their and then their there is. There. And if they are there, then their there isn't their.
You can't handle the truth.
As much of a tragedy the circumstances surrounding the suit are, any possible credibility the suit may have had has vanished with the hiring of Jack Thompson. Such a shame and waste of valuable time and taxpayer money if the case ever gets to trial. I'm going to assume that Rockstar et al. will file for summary judgement and probably win.
Terrible karma and aiming lower, which in this environment of one-sided reason, is higher.
That the kid playing violent video games was a symptom of his violent capacity, not the other way around.
You like your new Mac more than you like me, don't you, Dave? Dave? I asked...She said Yes.
I'd like to see if there's any increase in road accidents when movies such as "The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift" are released (theatre and DVD). If there's a slight increase (say, 0.1%), can the movie studios be sued?
People who drive cars with wings (don't bullshit me with "downforce", we're talking street cars here, not Formula racing), neons under the frame and 50K subwoofers aren't drivers, they're deluded people who think roads are their playground. Take away their driving license already, they're a danger to everyone.
Before I played command and conquer, I would have found the concept of global domination repugnant. Now I can't stop plotting. I've ordered major offenses in two foreign countries, and I've been eyeballing two others. I have found though, that in real life, it's not as easy as it is in C&C, so I'm thinking if I can't turn things around soon, I'll probably sue the makers of C&C.
-GWB
"Our morality is good, theirs is repressive."- Partisanship Rule #3
Whether or not the editor is being sarcastic is completely orthogonal to whether or not he understands and has correctly made use of the word "coincidence"!
l2p
SURELY NOT!!!!!
If your son is playing any game an excessive amount, maybe it's time to take him out to the baseball field or footbal field or hunting or whatever.
...
Hunting? But then he might learn to operate firearms, and I thought that was the whole problem here! The plaintiff claims that GTA taught the kid how to use guns
I stole this sig from someone cleverer than me.
Just be glad he wasn't hooked on Civ, he could have levelled whole cities before being stopped!
The guns I've been shooting for years don't have the auto-aim function enabled. Does anyone know where you can download the mod for this so I can patch my guns?
Plaintiffs are once again expecting us to believe that their "excellent" parenting skills were undermined by a fantasy. We've heard this before. Remember the Columbine/Doom suit that helped create the ESRB? When a child loses touch with reality to the point that he/she is able to transition from fantasy frag to real blood, then there is alot more wrong with this child's psyche that mere video game obsession. Take the video game out of the picture for a moment. Does anyone really honestly believe that Cody Posey would not have found other means to exact his revenge on his father? Our society has many, many examples of violent role models to choose from.
Did violence exist before it was depicted in video games or other forms of entertainment? Of course it did. Do violent depictions exacerbate an already warped mind? Possibly. Do these depictions cause a person who is well grounded in respect and honor to somehow flip over to the other side? If so, we should have hundreds if not thousands of videogame related murders to comment on every week. Are we to ignore the other potential causes, such as Eric Harris'(Columbine shooter) use of the prescription antidepressant Luvox? Was Charles Manson a product of society or created from the lifestyle of a whore mother? What else in Cody Posey's life contributed to his decision to kill his family? I'm sure as the weeks progress, and after the ESRB is tightened yet again and the lawyers have collected their bounty, we'll find out once again what the real reason was, and I doubt the answer will be because of GTA: Vice City. As for the families involved, this is yet one more example of someone expecting others to take responsibility for their own lack of parenting.
Nothing irks me more than to compare this to the gun debate. IMO, this comparison does to damage the argument for video games. Guns do have the potential to do great harm regardless of the intentions of the individual. But no matter how hard I try, I can't seem to get those bullets to fly out of my computer screen. I suppose if I rip out my hard drive and throw it hard enough, I could cause someone a nasty bump.
P.S.: I just finished playing GTA: San Andreas. Anyone else? What say we all get together and go cap some fools? No? Thought not.
"If your parents never had children, chances are you wonât either." -Dick Cavett
I can't wait until Jack Thompson sues the makers of the game Burgertime for making american kids obese.
Am I crazy, or maybe should daddy have told junior to get off that god damn video game system?
Where did junior get the thing in the first place (incidentally, a little ingrate, isn't he, likely killing the source of the free video games)?
I can't in my wildest dreams see myself generating this much money over my lifetime. I sometimes wonder where these numbers come from?
that the game comes with a gun too!!! There's a little sign on the gun that says, "use this on people. if in doubt of action, review all knowing video game as gun use resource."
I work in the game industry and was kind of nervous there for a second, and then I saw Jack Thompson was the plaintiff's attourney.
If by the EXTREMELY slim chance they actually won, I vot ethat we next sue the US government over torture allegations, saying it lead to copycats in serial killers, child molesters, etc.
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Thanks to Jack Thompson, I am now an avid gamer training to become a terrorist, so I can kill cops, and bang hookers on every street, finding such extraordinary uses for golf clubs as to bury them in peoples brains.
Thanks to Jack Thompson, I knew, that the training simulator is the entirety of the GTA series, so exquisitely crafted by Rockstar Games, under Take-Two's watchful eyes.
Thanks to you Jack Thompson, more of us are being trained daily, clicking mice, and pressing keys, watching the training simulation we control unfold, as we crash aircraft into government buildings, and throw grenades into high population areas.
Here's an idea, sue Jack Thompson, for raising awareness of this beautiful game, for he is the reason everyone knows about GTA!
I accidentally nicked myself the other day and went to the medicine cabinet to get my first-aid kit. I touched the box and my nick didn't go away. Following the whole "video games train people for the real world" argument, my cut should have healed the second I touched my first aid kit.
How many of you ever hurt yourself and wasn't instantly healed by your first aid kits??! I say we launch a law-suit against Johnson and Johnson for *decades* of faulty first-aid kits. We'll see if we can hire Jack Thompson! We'll win for sure!
Last time I checked, the parent's are responsible for teaching a child the difference between right and wrong.
Now that I think about it, if you look at all the law suits like this, it would appear that Americans really want a communist government. God forbid we take responsibility for our own actions...
Well I am one also that is tired of people not being personally accountatble for their own actions. For someone that has some predisposition to violence (whether it be their upbrigning, etc...) anything and I mean anything can set them off. I mean they could be stirring a bowl of alpha bits 1 morning and see a message in the bowl go out and kill 20 people. Could they claim the ceral made them do it, and then in turn sue Post for their demonic cerial? I think not but they are claiming that about games. Yes granted some of them are very violent and dipict things that a bowl of cerial can't, but come on since when has a video game acutally forced anyone to do anything. Its not like if for everyday you don't play 100 innocent kittens will be slaughtered because you failed to play, in the same respect the game isn't telling you to go out and kill people. So if the person shows they are mentally unfit(in general) then their behvaiour should be monitored by their guardians/peers/doctors/etc... if they find that a video game is making that individual violent then have that INDIVIDUAL stop playing the game. I for one have played many games in my life I grew up playing them and will continue to play but guess what I see them as what they are games, a source to relieve stress, have fun and do things I could never do nor would probably want to do in real life. Video games are all about fantasy. That thing you can't do, or that person you aren't, or living in a time, place, that you aren't but then again a book can do that to. Heck someone that is telling a story can do that to, guess that means anyone that reads a fairytale to their child so they can sleep is guilty too. I know I m starting to get off topic, but it seems that the case that is being brought up is off topic as well. The real case is not how GTA made the boy kill his parents even if it helped trigger violent tendancies (which I doubt it did, like I mentioned anything to someone that is of an unbalanced mind could be a trigger, cloud shapes, their cerial, etc...) but how and why the violent tendancies were there in the first place. Blame who put the tendancies there, if there is no one to blame then guess what the blame is fully on that individual and rightfully so.
The fastest way to be the center of attention is screw up, but do a good job and rarely get noticed. Wanna be seen?
I predict the use of the chewbaka defense on this one.
I hope no one already touched on this. (Im late to the party hear and only had time to read about half. anyhoo. I own two of the grand theft auto games and you "can" play them without killing people. (It wouldnt be fun and the story would not progress very far.) No one forces us (humans) to kill hundreds of people in this game! In court, this argument alone should be enough to stop a lawsuit not even taking into account all of the other comments here! peace.
Years of physical abuse are nothing compared to minutes spent with a video game.
Take 2 Interactice should counter sue them for negligence causing death for not stopping the abuse the kid suffered at his father's hands. Sometimes it's too bad lawsuits can't be considered libel or slander.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
How do these cases even make it to court?
It's the parents. Not for letting him play GTA, oh no, but for calling him Cody. Cody Posey. How was that kid EVER going to get through school without being seriously messed up? Clearly a lack parental responsibility.
why is it always "the media", or "music", or "video games", or something else that's blamed for these kids going out and killing someone? What ever happened to "just plain fucked up"? Huh? This kid was apparently abused for years by his father, and yet of all things, it's *got* to be the video games? The parental abuse couldn't *possibly* have just warped the hell out of this kid? Thank you, Jack Thompson, for showing us that beating your kids is just fine, as long as they're never allowed to play video games. (Not that he should have been playing those games anyway... of course, dear ol' Dad probably bought him the game too.)
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Ok yah where in the game do you kill your familly? It dosent.. I see more violence with guns and killing of mother and fathers on CNN with the shit in the middle east.. Really.. next they are going to say the 14 year old stole a car then got a hooker..
I don't know about anyone else but when I see an incident like this, the fact that he played GTA seems more like a symptom of a violent child rather than the cause. Not to say that everyone that plays violent video games does so because they love violence. More so, this kid was obsessed with GTA because he was attracted to the violence.
If you can't sue gun companies for shootings (as per the new federal act) then you sure as hell shouldn't be allowed to sue anyone else on the claim that it made you shoot someone.
It is by the juice of the coffee bean that thoughts acquire speed, the teeth acquire stains. The stains become a warning
To my knowledge, the only thing violent TV viewing or violent game playing has been proven to cause is a desensitization to violence. There is a link between hours spent playing games or watching TV and violent acts, but a link does not necessarily mean that one causes the other. A lot of people who become violent live in an environment where they aren't given much guidance, so they spend their time watching TV and playing games and never gain a sense for what's "right" and "wrong".
Namco was sued for Pacmen having spawned mass cannibalism...
.... at how relevant this is in RELIGION now.
/a off his soapbox
Every single Christian church I attended from when I was very young until about 18 when I stopped going to church; had the same exact theme. Mind you, it was all Protestant-based of course, but since the Catholic church loves being in the limelight, its not hard to extend the theme to them as well.
The theme being: "Its not my fault, the devil made me do it." Or something about the devil putting a bad thought in your head, etc. How we are all absolved from any responsibility because God and the Devil run everything. It didn't take me long to figure out how bunk this was.
Its one of the many reasons I deplore organized religion. But its funny how they are in the "blame game" as well.
In analysis of my own values; I've come to realize over time that NOTHING is more important than self responsibility. Take responsibility for yourself and accept your failures (and successes!!!). Honesty, courage, etc all fall into this one simple idea. And you'd be surprised at how defiant most Christians are to this idea... they will argue you down tooth and nail.
Will videogames have an impact of how we behave or not? If I listen to the violence, then the answer is no. When I listen to in-game advertising, then the answer is yes.
So a game where I am a drive-by shooter, the shooting won't have an effect on me, but the billboard saying 'coca cola' will?
And the following just for the fun of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp6FOyv6NVk
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
It's actually very difficult to hold and fire a gun in an effective way, much more so than any game or movie makes it out to be.
That's like saying you can learn to drive by playing video games. You'll actually learn more about the mechanics in a driving game with a game wheel and pedals than you would about shooting from a FPS. Neither one will make you very good at it in the real world without real practice, though.
If I watch Emeril cook on TV, will that make me a gourmet chef? Oh, the analogies just keep coming...
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Oh give me a break!! I can't believe how far people are willing to go to not take responsibility to properly raise their on kids. how dare they blame the game makers, when they should be blaming themselves for allowing their son to be playing a game for 17+ years old in the first place. I am a parent of 3 and a serious gamer (I own over 200 games across several systems). How can you let a your child play a violent game for months and not take some kind of action. I'll tell you how. The parents have no control over the kids anymore. Thanks to the fact that most parents work way to long of hours just so they can make sure little Johnny has the newest system out. There are just no one home to guide them anymore. Parents don't make time to see what it is their kids are into nowadays.Remember when you could spank your child? Well those days are gone and so is the respect and fear of the parent that came with it.I would never let my kids see me playing GTA or anything other game that I don't see as fitting for them to play. The ESRB doesn't slap a mature label on a product for no reason. I remember back in the days when a kid would ask for 50bucks and the parent would instantly ask what the hell for that's alot of money. It still is today and no way would I give it to them or spend it on something I had no clue as to what it contained of did for that matter. Parents are so afraid to see alittle of their own parents in themselves. So what your mom or dad was tough, but it was for areason.We as parents must always stay 2 steps ahead of our kids unless something of this nature will happen.We as parents must learn to say no that's just not for you. Your mindset isn't ready to deal with the makebelieve violence, or language that this product contain. Whether you lose some cool points. Jack Thompson should be ashame to represnt them. If anyone could just blame someone else for the action of their kids,there would be tons of crackpot lawsuits.If that's the case I should be able to sue the makers of alcoholic beverages, because little jimmy was drinking for months before he finally got behind the wheel one day and killed 5 people.Or why not sue the gun manufactures for making the gun the kid used to do the shootings. I could go on for days about how wrong this all is. It's time we go back to the old days and blame the parents. My name is Christopher B. Walker I am the father of 3 little girls. And I have spent thousands and thousands of hours playing video games and never once did i want to act on the makebelieve crap that I've seen in them. I don't deny that game have gotten more and more trus to life. But to blame a maker of a game because of the actions of some unsupervised kid is down right ludacris. Jack if you wanna go after some one go after the parents sue them for letting their kids get their hands on inapropitate material.For the record I am of African descent and the product of 2 parents addicted to crack cocaine,had no money whatsoever. And I must say that anything I ever done bad in my life was never because of game. But more because I wanted to do what ever it was that I did. If the kid is not able to tell the difference between reality and fiction he shouldn't have any video games or even a T.V. at all. It's the parents job to explain to their children what's ok and what's not. Remember when The Three Stooges had kids hitting people with hammerts and poking eyes out. It was up to the parents to tell the kids that a hammer to Suzie's head may kill her. It's up to us to continue raising our kids and teaching them wrong from right. So before you start to blame and outside party you should look at the inside first, starting with MOM AND DAD!!!!!!!!Thank you
If there is one thing I have noticed about Jack Thompson, is that he is very "cautious" and quick to remove himself from any blame.
There are countless examples, such as him misinterpreting anti-game-violence group's studies and severing ties while screaming that they are wrong & in bed with the game industry when they correct him. His most recent "cover my ass" one is with the Louisiana video game law, where he basically jumped ship the second his flawed bill got challenged. Of course, being the type of person Jack is, he is quick to place the blame on the government officials defending this bill and says it is their fault that he is refusing to give them the "expert witnesses" that will help them win their case. And if he has that much of a problem working with people he agrees with, you have to wonder what he is like without a camera in front of his face.
Then again, he is somewhat the same with a camera in front of him. He loves comparing people like Doug Loustine(sp) to the likes of Hitler, Sadam Hussan(sp), etc. On his beloved 60 Minutes he made such a reference and they aired & kept it, but lucky for him later on 60 Mintues eventually and quietly removed it! I say his online personally is his true one, he is equally nasty as some net.kooks(like puting up harassing comments with his phone number knowningly attched to entrap people dumb enough to call him) and has no problem letting it show because he understands "internet anonymity." Who in the real world is going to believe that a "high professinal lawyer" like him is doing all this kookery and trolling?
Anyway, back on being cautious, his list of targets is somewhat better then the other "videogames made me do it" suing everyone even if they were not involved with the event(why, besides cash, sue Gamestop if the "killer" got all his games from Walmart?), but I have to ask, where is beef? I know Microsoft also publishes these "EVIL murder-simulator-killer trainers" and even Nintendo with that crummy GBA one. Funny how he just singles out Sony and ignores the very big one, is it fear of getting a good slapdown by Microsoft's legal department.
Wouldn't surprise me if all the current litigation work was to get him a stronger footing in cases like this. Seems to me he wants to get into the "video games made them do it" racket. All the recent laws(that have failed, including his own) and Governmet video-game-violence talk has probably gotten him over confident that this time it won't turn out like his 1997 Kansis case.
Bad parrenting? Oh no no ofcorse not. Parents of america dont like stepping up to the plate infact they would rather blame someone else for there shitty parrenting.
The greatest revenge in life is massive success.
The basic premise of freedom of speech is that you are fundamentally wrong. It's rooted in another assumption, something Chinese children say in school every day: "Man is essentially good."
Ignoring that this is from China, do you believe that? Do you believe that most people mostly have good intent, most of the time? That given the choice between killing or not killing someone they don't know, who they can't possibly know is innocent, most people will choose not to kill?
The basic premise of freedom of speech is that good ideas, both morally good and practically good, will survive. It's a kind of memetic natural selection. We cannot survive as a species if we are all psychopathic killers, thus any meme of psychopathic killing cannot survive. And it is inherent in our nature to reject such a meme.
On the other hand, the true psychopaths don't need all this wonderful, free exchange of ideas. In the most facist, locked-down, censored society imaginable, a psychopath could still find something to set them off. Son of Sam was set off by a dog.
The basic premise of freedom of speech is, given free exchange of both good and bad information, the good will outweigh the bad. That there will be many more people who would be neutral/apathetic or evil, who are influenced by a book or a movie like 1984, Uncle Tom's CAbin, etc, and end up being a good person -- that even good people will become better people, or live better lives, or even simply be happier because of the availability of such material... That the positive impact of such things is much more than the negative impact of, say, the Turner Diaries.
In fact, even more fundamental is the assumption that we simply cannot afford anything less than a totally free flow of information, and that we must have a damn good reason for even the slightest limitation ("Fire!" in a crowded theater).
If these assumptions are not true, than we must admit that we, as a species, are so immature that we cannot tell the difference between a good idea and a bad one. If we are so easily manipulated, then we really have no hope, and we should just give up now. There's no point in trying to limit the flow of information in such a case, since all you would have to do to control the population is send a letter to the censors -- who, upon reading the letter, would be emotionally swayed by it into censoring exactly what you wish them to censor, thus giving you world domination.
Also, I think I've read your post somewhere before. No offense, but is it a cut'n'paste troll?
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
Yes, id like to sue the government, as for at leats 13 years straight they drank TREATED water. The government must not be treating the water properly, as people who commit these crimes have been found to have drank lots of this TREATED water in their life.
The Government is liable. Yes. must sue them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Bad parenting should be a jailable offense.
have these ppl heard of ratings? gta is rated mature, so technically the 14 year old shouldn't have been playing it anyway. and the idea of blaming the gaming company is just plain rubbish, as all suits like this have always been. when a teen gets pregnant, you don't blame the porn industry, do you? why is this any different.
"If you notice, other countries that have a government-enforced rating systems (England and Australia, for example) also have banned some games (like Manhunt) outright. It's easier to keep the "really bad" games away from children when they're not allowed to be sold."
I think you'll find that the UK government (btw, "England" does not have its own government") have not banned manhunt or any mainstream game for that matter. Infact I can't find details of any publicly released game being banned in the UK. If anyone knows of any I would be interested to know of them but Manhunt definatly was not banned, a few stores simply stopped stocking it for a short while following a homocide which was claimed to have been a re-enactment of the game.
so, a humans life is worth $200 million?
let's start saving our money to "buy" Jack Thomsons life...
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
I always liked Frank Zappa's comment when rock music was the big target for these sort of law suits. "There are more love songs than anything else. If songs could make you do something we'd all love one another." -- Frank Zappa
There isnt any moment in GTA where you kill your father, stepmother and stepsister, so how is this even at all related to GTA? Using their own words... "Copycat" I see no such grounds for that claim.
Dare i say, he wasnt happy about his real mother not being apart of the family, perhaps death, or divorce. Perhaps he held his father responsible, and never liked his stepmother and stepsister... so he killed them?
Maybe he was just angry and confused like most teens and took it out on those he thought were the problem? Maybe they abused him?
There are far more explainations that are more reasonable than GTA. Again You never kill your family in GTA... so wheres the connection?
Oh he played videogames... I see... So like every other child his age that plays videogames, he slaughtered his family.
yeah... riiiiiiiiiighhhhhhht..
The now-dead family members are not at fault for their death, but I'm surprised the decision to blame the designers rather than the fact this kid was allowed to play a game with the revised ESRB rating of M (17+) content.
Step 1: Countersuit for barratry. That way when this thing is revealed for the bullshit it is, Jackoff Thompson will finally get booted from the bar.
Another lawsuit against the industry. *Yawn* Funny, he's the only lawyer dumb enough to file these frivolous lawsuits.
l e.php?storyid=776/
l e.php?storyid=777/
Jack Thompson has "Exhibit A" tattooed on his forehead as the proof needed in this country for tort reform.
Jack Thompson is nothing more than a pork rind that the brain-damaged, sensationalistic news media wants when they're stoned and just want garbage.
Jack Thompson is a one-trick pony whose 15 minutes of fame expired 4 years ago.
These lawsuits against Take-Two, Wal-Mart, etc. are no different than the lawsuits that were filed against Ozzy Osbourne over the song "Suicide Solution", Judas Priest over the song "Better by You, Better Than Me", and Oliver Stone over the movie "Natural Born Killers"(which all three won, meaning the video game industry has legal precedent on their side).
Thompson will fail again here, as the abuse played a hell of a lot more of a factor than GTA(which, along with the Playstation 2, belonged to Cody Posey's abusive father) ever could.
http://mountainmailcountry.com/modules/news/artic
Come to think of it, the plantiffs in this case are trailer park trash looking for a big payday and the brother of Cody's father admitted that he knew about the abuse and did nothing.
http://mountainmailcountry.com/modules/news/artic
Also, when Thompson posted his press release days before he went to New Mexico to file the suit, he claimed that, "One thing that is useful in what is going to occur Monday is that the prosecutor of the kid who killed in this instance actually called Thompson and asked him to bring this lawsuit... ", which could make this lawsuit illegal under New Mexico law, as district attorneys are barred from engaging in private practice(inculding giving legal advice and counsel).
== BearDogg-X ==
If a child playes violent games obsessivly for months, I think the parents have to be pretty useless to not stop them. When someone goes and murders a ton of people everyone left standing will automatically point the finger at the game, not the obvious bad parenting of letting a child play a known violent game for months on end.