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

[garcia]

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

Guns aren't difficult to use and, as you already pointed out, movies and TV also show you exactly how to hold and fire a gun that makes you just as effective. This comment is nothing more than hype to confuse the media and eventually the jury.

The only difference I see between typical gun cases and video game cases is the money behind the gun cases coming from the pro-Second Ammendment folks.

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

[Thansal]

My personal favorite for arguments like this (that the game trained him how to shoot a gun) is that they use it for EVERY case, including the ones where the game could NOT have trained him to use a gun (Like GTA).

Trying this on on an FPS, I can sorta get (except for the lank of relation between an FPS gun and a real gun). However, tryign this out on a game where you AUTO AIM just does not work!

cmon, I for am having a hard time finding the R1 button on my rifle so that it will aim at some one.....

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[arth1]

Guns aren't difficult to use and, as you already pointed out, movies and TV also show you exactly how to hold and fire a gun that makes you just as effective.

More effective, even. At least in a movie you learn about recoil and sometimes even aim adjustments, and the bangs are much louder (not nearly what they are in real life, though -- unless the kid had been subjected to real gunfire before, his head ringing and being half dead after a shot must have come as a shock).

Regards,
--
*Art

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[garignak]

I for am having a hard time finding the R1 button on my rifle so that it will aim at some one..... Personally, I'd like to find the unlimited ammo cheat for mine. Ammo isn't getting any cheaper.

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

[bmw]

Oh please... When it comes to video games and movies, I am one of the most violent, sick and twisted individuals you will ever meet. I love to torture, maim and kill. When it comes to real life, I am one of the most kind, caring people you will ever meet. 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. Violence in video games and movies does NOT desensitize you to violence in the real world.

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

[russ1337]

You forgot an important point (1 a); Avoid responsibility for your own actions

I'd say the killers parents hold some of the responsibility for their childs actions. They should have recognised violent behaviour from the game coming though to 'real life' and should have taken action - teaching the child that acting like that is unacceptable. Of course this does not happen 'in real life!!!

There is no way the killer went from 'normal kid' then played a bunch of GTA and became 'insane murderer'. He would have developed his violent tendancies over time, and his parents should have picked up on this.

And where the fuck did a 14 YO get a loaded gun from? - They have a lot to answer for.

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

[Kadin2048]

Where is the Bar association?

Um, I think they were last seen heading for the direction of the bank. Follow the laughter.

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.

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[Chris Burke]

"[Grand Theft Auto: Vice City] trained him ''how to point and shoot a gun in a fashion making him an extraordinarily effective killer."

Bwa ha ha ha ha!

This is one of those real nice litmus test statements. If someone for even a millisecond considers that this statement might be true, much more so if someone actually utters it themselves, then they clearly have no idea what they are talking about, they have never touched the game, and quite probably have never touched any video game except maybe Pac Man twenty years ago. They're just making shit up because it sounds nice in their lawsuit.

Seriously. There is no way GTA teaches you how to shoot a gun. You hold down the target button until the guy you want to shoot has a green reticle over him, then you press fire. There's no aiming involved, there's no skill in holding a gun, hell you usually can't even see your character's hands since it's a 3rd person view from behind him. This game teaches you nothing.

At least when some ambulence-chasing retard claims video games train people to kill, they at least pick one which involves aiming.

'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 he was obsessed with the game and played for months before killing his family, eh? Well there's no family killing in GTA; if he was truly inspired by GTA he would have gone after cops, mobsters, or hookers. Sounds to me like adorable little Cody already had a target in mind and his obsession revolved around that!

There's really only two options here.

One: Cody was a perfectly innocent fourteen year old boy with no thoughts of violence until he witnessed them in GTA. In this case he may have been innocent but he was also batshit insane, and had he been exposed to the baneful influence of Warner Brothers cartoons he would have killed his family by dropping an anvil on their heads then saying "Th-th-th-th-that's all folks!"

Two: Cody was not an innocent fourteen year old boy, he wasn't obsessed with GTA he was obsessed with slaying his family and GTA was just his focus/outlet. If GTA never existed, it would have been Natural Born Killers, and if not for that it would have been something else. A book, a movie, a play, a song, whatever, it doesn't matter, because that's not what drove him. His own motivations drove him.

Let's see if TFA can help us distinguish which of these might be the case:

Posey had told police he shot his family after his father, the ranch foreman, slapped him for not cleaning horse stalls fast enough. Prosecutors described Posey as a ruthless killer, but his lawyers claimed his father had abused him for years.

Oh, lookie here! Seems like ol' Mr. Posey may have been slapping his boy around for years! So let's consider this again, which sounds more likely: Video games drove Codey Posey to kill his family, and without video games he never would have committed violence. Or recurrent child abuse drove Codey Posey to kill his family, and without recurrent child abuse he never would have committed violence.

And now the boy's extended family -- who were either astoundingly ignorant of what went on, or knew and never did anything -- have enlisted Jack Thompson to help them get $600 million from a video game maker who is only tangentially related to a case about teen violence and child abuse. That's just low. That's a disgusting, sick way of cashing in on a broken family that nobody else tried to fix.

Fuck you, Jack Thompson.

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[SatanicPuppy]

It all depends on the weapon. A .22 is pretty pathetic, in terms of recoil, though it can be an effective weapon due to penetrating power and accuracy. Likewise, 9mm's and .38's. A beefier pistol like a .44, .45, or .357 has surprising recoil.

Even discounting recoil, pistols are suprisingly difficult to shoot. A rifle target's outer ring is about the same size as the inner ring of a pistol target, and it takes a lot of practice to be able to make the bullets go where you want 'em to. They're simply not accurate weapons, and very few video games I've ever played took that into account to the degree it actually applies in my experience.

I've occasionally run across games that had something resembling an authentic sight on their weapons, but even there, there is no way to prepare an individual for the actual weight and sway of a weapon. It takes decent arm strength to hold a rifle steady enough for accurate shooting, in every position except prone. Likewise for a pistol, especially since pistol accuracy is notional for all but experienced shooters.

In games, the protagonist is often considered to have arm strength sufficient to hold a weapon steady, as well as the sort of ingrained experience you need to effectively compensate for the different recoil of different weapons. A 30.06 caliber rifle, for example, has very little barrel deflection when the trigger is pulled (despite substantial kick), whereas even a 9mm pistol has significant upward deflection after a shot. I've seen many a dumbass with a .45 empty half a clip and end up more a danger to birds than their target.

The only weapon I've ever seen that was usually rendered with any sort of accuracy was the shotgun, but "aiming" a shotgun is pretty simple. The problem with the shotgun is recoil, ammunition, and reloading, and those are not rendered accurately. Unless you're using a .410 or something small, you're going to be dealing with significant recoil...I've seen people try to "shoot from the hip" without firmly seating the butt of the gun against their hip, and actually have the recoil jerk the gun right out of their hand.

Ammunition for a shotgun is another issue...While all shotgun ammunition is lethal against humans at the right range (the "right" range for birdshot would probably involve actually touching the target with the barrel), the extreme variety of ammunition commonly available would probably confound a gamer who is used to having only one option, usually suitable for large targets (e.g. slugs or buckshot).

Then comes the loading issue...Unless you end up with a semi-auto, you're going to have to learn to work a pump slide, and it is trickier than it looks when you're in a hurry...Very easy to "short-shuck" and jam a shell. New pump shotguns also tend to have very stiff action, which can result in some humiliating moments while you're wrestling with the slide. Even with a semi-auto loading is awkward, and, unless you modify the gun, you're going to be limited to 3 or 4 shots, rather than the 10 or 12 from the game-style riot shotgun.

I've been around guns my whole life, and I've been playing games for about the same amount of time (though true shooters didn't come out until I was in my teens). My aim tends to be good in games and in rl, but I couldn't say which one came first. I'd go so far as to say that games definitely helped me improve my kinesthetic sense, but the ability to sort of "know" where you're pointing your weapon is only the tiniest part of being able to use one effectively.

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[StarvingSE]

Why is it that video games in arcades (yes,they do still exist) and in movie theaters don't take any heat in these lawsuits?? I would think games like Time Splitters or Police Trainer where you actually have a physical gun and shoot things on the screen would teach you more about operating a real gun than the auto-aiming goodness of GTA.

This is just a ploy to make a buck off of a successful game maker. The damn game has an "M for Mature" sticker on it for a reason. Why don't the plaintiffs start being parents and not stock guns within easy reach of their children.

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[dan828]

Like most people when they first heard about the McDonalds case, I thought that it was a stupid verdict. Reading the facts of the case, however, convinces most people otherwise.

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[BakaHoushi]

But Doom did train those kids to kill! It's an accurate portrayal of an actual shootout:
No strafing
No reloading
No aiming up or down.
Or left and right, for that matter.
And all your targets will run right at you.
And don't forget, ammo and guns can be found just lying around.
If you need to heal a wound, just touch a medkit in a local nurse's office

With these advanced skills, previously only taught to spies, marines, and Jack Bauer, are now in the hands of our children. Beware, America! Doom shall be your doom!

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[Chris Burke]

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.

Yes, but there's an important distinction: The soldiers knew they were training to kill other people, knew that the silhouette that was their target was designed to represent the real humans they were training to kill, and thus were consciously building an association between those targets and the real humans they would eventually shoot.

Sane people are easily able to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Training a soldier to kill involves deliberately and consciously eroding that barrier to allow them to train on fake targets. And don't forget to say that while the percentage went up, indicating that the training was better, there was still a large percentage of soldiers who were still unable to shoot on real targets.

Soldiers -- professional killers, deliberately trying to gain the ability to fire on real humans with the full encouragement of their superiors, still find it difficult. But video games do this automatically and subconsciously in normal teenagers? Whatever.

If you deliberately use a video game with human-esque targets to train yourself to be able to shoot real humans, then sure it can have the same effect. But so could drawing a cutout of a human torso, handing it on the wall, and pointing at it while saying "Bang!" because it's pretty much the same level of realism and real connection. At the point at which someone is using video games to train themselves to kill in real life, then they're already lost.


Now, instead of a sillouitte, we have a highly graphic representation of what killing someone is really like.

Emphasis mine, and you've got to be kidding me. Have you ever actually touched GTA, or even seen a screenshot?! You'd have to be insane to think any depiction of death in a video game is what it is really like. There is no video game in existence that approaches the reality of something like Saving Private Ryan, but apparently that isn't responsible for training our teens to murder.

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.

Oh please. Neither you nor anyone else has shown that violent video games cause ANY harm in someone not already intent on violence and that any other form of stimulation wouldn't have caused equally. It doesn't matter if it's a video game, a book, a movie, or a silhouette they paint on the side of the barn -- a person with murderous intent will find a way to steel themselves for it, GTA or no.

Saying otherwise because you just assume video games are different and magical means you're just biased, unreasoning, and ignorant.

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[illumin8]

My personal favorite for arguments like this (that the game trained him how to shoot a gun) is that they use it for EVERY case, including the ones where the game could NOT have trained him to use a gun (Like GTA).

I'm going to quote some Eminem lyrics here for extreme truth:

They say music can alter moods and talk to you,
Well can it load a gun up for you, and cock it too?
Well if it can, then the next time you assault a dude,
Just tell the judge it was my fault and i'll get sued.

Re:Absolutely no chance of success

[SeattleGameboy]

Note to self:

Don't fuck with SatanicPuppy...

Any chance to advertise.

[debus]

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...

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.

Re:Negligence lies with the child's guardian

[iapetus]

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.

Typical kneejerk liberal response. "Ooh, let's blame the parents for letting him play an M-rated game!" "Ooh, let's blame the abusive father!" "Ooh, let's blame the parents who left guns lying around!" "Ooh, let's blame the people who failed to provide any sort of care for a mentally unwell child!" This just shows your complete lack of understanding of the fundamental point of this case and others like it.

There's no way the parents could afford to pay out on a $600m lawsuit, even if they weren't already dead.

Re:Negligence lies with the child's guardian

[varmittang]

Remember, here in the U.S.A, we have reached a new age where NOBODY is responsible for their own actions. Remember that.

Somebody: Holy shit! I killed somebody! Bob made me do it!
Bob: Joe made me do it!
Joe: I blame the media!
Media: Videogames.
Videogames: Personal responsibility?
Personal Responsibility: AFK

Re:coincidence?

[mctk]

Unless that person normally does coincidences. Then, coincidentally enough, someone doing what s/he normally does would constitute a coincidence.

Sue the parents, not the game developers.

[Merph]

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.

Meerly Training for Clash of Civilizations

[SRA8]

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.

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.

I ran into a brick wall

[jlebrech]

I'm suing the makers of T.R.O.N

My toddler has the very same problem.

[Peter Trepan]

She stomps mushrooms, shoots fireballs, and has demolished at least a dozen of my nice barrels with a massively oversized hammer.

The game does NOT make you kill.

[CyberLord Seven]

It is the player's choice to kill, or rob, or rape, or maim. Just like in real life. I can ask you to do something vile and reprehensible, but it is always your choice as to whether or not you will comply.

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?

Something has to be done about these games

[Sloppy]

It's only a matter of time before Queen Elizabeth is assassinated by some bishop.

I've *got* to get me one of those...

[iapetus]

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

Where can I buy one of those real-world guns with a slightly clunky auto-aim feature?

Re:coincidence?

[JBHarris]

INCONCEIVABLE!!!

I learned to shoot people in GTA...

[Corngood]

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.

Re:Mod parent down due to intelligence deficit

[twistedsymphony]

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.

In a related story...

[notnAP]

The three corporations named in this suit - Sony Corporation of America, Take-Two Interactive Software Inc. and its subsidiary, Rockstar Games - have filed suit against ABC Television Network. The suit also includes the families who are suing these corporations.

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.

Jack Thompson has made me so angry

[rk]

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've learned lots of skills from games.

[Maul]

- 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.

Jack is defending accused child abusers

[bigbigbison]

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.

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.

No, No, he's right.

[partisanX]

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