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.

Comments

Absolutely no chance of success

[malsdavis]

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.

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[JBHarris]

While I agree with your statement that this case has no chance of success, I come to my judgement based on the premise that those most DIRECTLY responsible are to blame.

First, the child.
Then, the parents that allowed him to play a violent game 'obsessively'.

There really is no one else to blame. Not the gun manufacturer, not the game developer/publisher, not even society.

To propose reasons as to why a person would commit a crime is to de-criminalize the perpetrator. It matters not WHY someone did something wrong, what matters is that they did it. To tell them it isn't there fault is to take away thier humanity. If we start down the road where a video game can make someone less human, then I propose all those people that blame video games for their actions be killed in the most inhumane way possible. I mean after all...they are less human by their own admission.

On a completely different note, the child must not have learned too much from the video game. If he had studied the game closer, he would know that a flame thrower will get rid of all the police and if you find a blue star power-up it makes all the police attention go away....I bet he didn't even look for a blue star. n00b!

Brad

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[general scruff]

Guns aren't difficult to use

Ok, I can agree with that, however, it is an entirely different thing to point that gun at a human being and pull the trigger. I'm sure you are familiar with the anecdote regarding the percentage of soldiers in WWI that couldn't bring themselves to shoot another human being. Target practice at that time was a simple bullseye. When the target was changed to the sillouitte of a human, the percentage of those able to fire a gun at another human increased greatly.

Now, instead of a sillouitte, we have a highly graphic representation of what killing someone is really like. You see them moan, hold thier abdomen, and cry out in agony. If you see that in a video game continously, what happens when those with the predisposition to violence finally snap? Now, instead of feeling remorse at the first dead victim, they feel like they can keep going because their brain is used the hearing the painfull pleas of a dying person.

I don't think that violent video games are the only cause of all violence, and I don't think that everyone playing them will cause violence just because, and I certainly don't think that $600M will make any difference either way. But don't say that violent video games can't and don't cause ANY harm, because I will just right you off as biased, unreasoning, and ignorant.

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[Damastus the WizLiz]

I still blame parents. I have played video games all of my life I have never picked up a gun and shot someone. My parents taught me the line between fantasy and reality and reinforced it. My father taught me how to point and shoot a gun at the age of 5. He also taught me to respect them. If parents can't monitor what their kids are doing and teach them the difference between TV/Video games and the real world then how can children be expected to know. More so, if parents don't want them exposed to this level of violence then it is up to the parents to not give them access. How can anyone blame the maker of a video game for anything when it's the parents that put it into the kid's hands in the first place?

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[LWATCDR]

"There really is no one else to blame. Not the gun manufacturer, not the game developer/publisher, not even society."
Really?
I don't blame the game developer but then is it really wise to develop a game the rewards acts that is anti-social?
Think about it this light. How many times have we praised a movie or say a book like 1984, Brave New World, Gentleman's Agreement, Uncle Tom's cabin, or of a number of other acts of fiction because they made us think?
If a book or movie can move people in a positive way then it is logical that a book or movie like, say the Turner Diaries can move people in a negative way?
If a book or movie can "change someones life". Then it can change someones life.
If a book or movie can do that then couldn't a video game?
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.

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[russ1337]

>>> "The game trained him ''how to point and shoot a gun in a fashion making him an extraordinarily effective killer."

[Scene 1]

Defence Attorney: "Can the member of the Jury who have not played a First Person Shooter video game raise their hands"

Defence Attorney: *Identifies little grey haired old lady*

Defence Attorney: Jury member number 3, can you please aim this Plastic 9mm glock at the Judge.

Defence Attorney: *hands old lady the replica*
Little old lady: *points gun at judge*

Defence Attorney: "where the heck did you learn to point a gun!??"

Jury Member: " oh, on the news and from watching 'Cops'"

Defence Attorney team: *high-fives*

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[berashith]

If the person is predisposed to violence, then the safeguard that you mention is inherently not there.

If the person is not predisposed to commit a violent act, then the safeguard to which you refer is already in place and the act will not be commited. This is entirely independent of the game, and entirely dependent upon the person commting the act.

Negligence lies with the child's guardian

[Cyphertube]

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.

Rated M

[max8061]

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.

Agreed

[Khammurabi]

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

So...the father and stepmother let him play GTA "obsessively" for months, and now those same parental units are dead as a direct result. I know it sounds terribly cruel by implying this, but in this case it looks like bad parenting and improper gun control killed them.

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.

Re:Agreed

[adwarf]

There is no way they can blame games for this. Thompson is just trying bring as many cases as he can to civil trial and blame them on games, hoping that he can brainwash enough people who only hear the headline, "Violent Video Games Blamed for..." Cody Posey was a sick individual. He watch his mother die in a car accident at age 10 and was sexually and physically abused by his father and his step-mother. He probably would have been found been found innocent if he hadn't shot his step-sister so that she wouldn't tell on him and then try to hide the murder. In the end the courts found him guilty and charge him as a juvenile because, "There is evidence that the situational nature of the violence makes it less likely that the respondent will pose a future danger to the public." [courttv.com] Basically thecourt says the killings were a result of the abuse and that Cody was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. Not a desire to kill ignited by video games.

an anecdote and an opinion

[Scrameustache]

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.