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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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...
3) Jack Thompson sees this on the news and calls the family up telling them he knows where the blame "really" lies.
Also not a coincidence but IMO it's the most likely of scenarios.
Collector's Edition
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!
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.
Yes. Because guns *DO* kill. Games don't.
What do you mean. I can beat someone to death with a game console, shoot them with a gun, burn them with gasoline, beat them with a baseball bat, or punch them in the throat over and over again.
In each case, I'm the one doing the killing. Guns just make killing easier.
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.
Tsss. No need to have this silly debate again. I only wanted to point out that guns being banned is not a bad thing.
I find the above two statements to be contradictory. The concept of gun bans and video game bans are similar in many ways. It is the basic argument of personal responsibility versus outside influence. Which is responsible, the person who commits an act or the things that influence that decision and outcome? The people in this case are arguing that video games trained the child to be a better killer, making him better at and more likely to kill those he murdered. Gun control proponents argue that guns make it easier and more likely that a person will kill another. In both cases, they're claiming access to a physical object is responsible for the end result and we need to remove access to that object.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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...
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.