Grand Theft Auto Civil Case Moves Forward 129
An Alabama court has refused a request by retailers and Take-Two Entertainment lawyers to throw out a 'Grand Theft Auto-style killing spree' civil case. From the Next Generation article: "Moore, who was 18 at the time of the 2003 slayings, is convicted of killing two Fayette county officers and a dispatcher, and claimed that Grand Theft Auto inspired him to do it. That defense was barred, and Moore was sentenced to death. Although that defense was thrown out, the multi-million dollar suit filed by relatives of the victims claim that Moore was in fact mimicking GTA, which attorneys claim Moore played 'obsessively'."
Just unbelievable. (Score:5, Insightful)
the point? (Score:5, Insightful)
even if we're prepared to accept that there's a causal link in this case between observation and mimicking, surely that he played it 'obsessively' is enough to reject the argument. if you eat/drink/smoke/gamble/have sex/do anything 'obsessively' there are bound to be negative consequences.
if, on the other hand, he'd played the game for 30 minutes and, for example, the seqence of lights and sounds put him into a suggestable state of hypnosis and programmed him to be a cop-killer (not possible annyway since hypnosis can't make you do anything you're not really prepared to do), then there might be a case.
Why sue anybody else? (Score:4, Insightful)
You know, this has to stop somewhere. The guy was sick. His parents, friends and relatives who knew him are much more guilty than people who created the video game. Society itself is guilty of allowing such people to roam free. But then, we can't incarcerate everyone "just in case". So my point is: shit happens. Whatever his reasons, whatever the motives, whatever the games he played and the programs he watched, he is a murderer. He's been sentenced to death. The vast majority of people who play GTA do not go on a killing spree aftewards. The game is not the problem.
Grand Theft Auto Creates Killers (Score:5, Insightful)
If a person's mental state is so twisted that they would kill 3 people after being 'influenced' by a video game, then obviously there are much deeper issues at fault than a bunch of pixels and a joypad.
Where is the logical conclusion to this constantly expanding era of absurd litigation? It's scary to think where it may lead... hell, it's scary enough to think about where we are with it already.
Re:Goddamnit (Score:5, Insightful)
<comwalk> Remember, here in the U.S.A, we have reached a new age.
<comwalk> NOBODY is responsible for their own actions.
<comwalk> Remember that.
<comwalk> Holy shit! I killed somebody! Bob made me do it!
<comwalk> Bob: Joe made me do it!
<comwalk> Joe: I blame the media!
<comwalk> Media: Videogames.
<comwalk> Videogames: Personal responsibility?
<comwalk> Personal Responsibility: <AFK>
GTA, violence, and the need to be Re-elected (Score:3, Insightful)
1: We have evidence that Violence and Violent Video Games are correlated. Nobody has any clue if violent games makes kids violent, or if violent kids like violent games; but it's politically unpopular to accuse your constituients' kids of being thugs. (FYI, this is the kind of evidence that says smoking and cancer are correlated, but nobody really cares whether or not cancer causes smoking)
2: It's a mid-term Election year. That means that there are several elected officials who desperately need to distract the people voting for them away from an unpopular war, and a deficit which is spiraling out of control.
3: The violence issue in particular has traction because people feel powerless to combat it; trying to protect your kids from becoming assholes is like trying to protect them from the chicken pox. It doesn't work. So, people find a scapegoat, something tangible that they can dismantle and try to keep away from their children. They convince themselves that if they can just keep violent media away from the kids, maybe kids won't know how to be violent. This isnt really their fault, people have been falling for non-causa-pro-causa arguments (with this, therefore because of this) since the dawn of time.
4: Our elected officials are like the contractors at your work. Solving problems does not help them; in fact, Solving problems permanently in a way which makes everyone happy makes them less likely to be re-elected.(this is not a troll, think about this) However, appearing to solve problems does help them. They get the credit for being a tireless defender of the public, and the problems are still there to fix next time they need a boost.
5: History teaches us the following: Games and other High-definition media will continue to be the scapegoat until someone builds a better scapegoat. Console games like GTA will wear targets on their backs until someone makes a VR Game where you rape/kill/steal/whatever or otherwise manages to take simulated violence to the Next Level. Until then, we personally have a choice: we can either whine, follow the mob, or run for congress.
6: There are thousands of idiots out there, sooner or later you will probably fail to think about something and be one of them. While I don't expect you to fix any of the above problems, do try to be smart about it and start thinking critically about the next thing that pisses you off.
Re:Sue the parents (Score:4, Insightful)
Rockstar games has more money.
This sickens me when people think that they can forgo the roles that parents are supposed to play and then sue somebody else for their kids not turning into perfect citizens.
It's worth pointing out that it the victims parents that are sueing, not the parents of the criminals.
Re:I wonder why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Expensive flight simulators go to great lengths to emulate the feel of really flying. If it were as simple as just knowing the mechanics of it, anyone could fly a few hundred hours in X-plane on their PC with a Logitech $30 stick then go hop in a 747 and be fine.
X-plane is FAA certified as a training simulator, but it's only FAA certified when it's used in a full-motion simulator, one that costs $150,000.
Shooting a paper silhouette target with a real gun is much more effective training than any video game can ever be, and yet I don't hear anyone calling for those to be banned, or even calling them "scary".
Re:Just unbelievable. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's just the part where they move past that and start blaming everything around him that makes me think they're overreaching. Do they honestly think that if he'd only played Solitare that he wouldn't be violent? I don't think so. He may have gotten some inspiration from the game, but ultimately the choice to do it was not dictated by Take Two or Rockstar or anybody but himself.
Re:I wonder why... (Score:2, Insightful)
Sorry, I don't buy it. I've played hours of video games. In games, I've killed thousands of people. In real life, I get all squeamish about the thought of squashing a spider. And I couldn't use a gun to save my life. The only weapons I've ever used are the plastic sort with two buttons and a little wheel on top, and a little ball thingy underneath, that you roll around on your desk to aim. In real life, I could make a good guess as to which bit's the trigger and where the bullets come out, but I wouldn't even know where to look to find that "safety catch" thing I've heard of.
If you want to stop gun crime, make shooting ranges illegal. THOSE are the things that train people to hit targets with guns. Video games just train you to line up pixels on a monitor, which isn't actually all that useful if you want to commit a real-life crime, you know?
(And no, as it happens I don't believe shooting ranges should be banned.)
Re:Define 'prepared' (Score:3, Insightful)
OT: Death penalty (Score:1, Insightful)
But does that have to be the case? Did the jury not have a choice in the matter? After all, you don't magically become an adult 18 years after being born.
Re:I wonder why... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Grand Theft Auto Creates Killers (Score:3, Insightful)
I think we should ban the sale and ownership of dogs, if they can encourage a person to go on a murder spree. Nevermind any crimes inspired by a twisted interpretation of a religion...
Re:I wonder why... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'd like to argue against this. I've been playing violent games for ages, and as a young teenager, I saw the video of when Kennedy was shot (first time seeing a person actually shot) and I felt physically sick. Stopped playing Counterstrike: Source for a few days, then eventually shook it off and came back.
It's not real, and you always, ALWAYS know that it's not real (assuming no mental disorders). You just can't trick yourself into thinking it is when you're aiming with a mouse and moving with a keyboard.
Coming sonn to a game box near you... (Score:3, Insightful)
Excessive exposure of disturbed individuals to graphically violent games may reenforce existing violent tendencies. Coupled with a disconnect from reality, these conditions may result in the real-world application of themes observed in the game environment, including--but not limited to--assault, robbery, rape, torture, and murder. Please note the existing ESRB rating and seek professional help if you feel the desire to replicate game scenarios in real life.
Re:I wonder why... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's commonly used on people who already tend to express negative behaviors regardless of whether they're given ideas or not. E.g.:
"Those greedy bastards in Congress. Next they'll be taxing us for the air we breathe!"
"Don't give them any ideas."
Which is in fact perfect for the situation -- this man was already violent. That the particular violent acts he performed may or may not have been influenced by a game is just a footnote. Not that it looks like they were -- other than police officers being involved, there is nothing "GTA-like" about his violent acts.
Perhaps if he hadn't played the game, he would have shot them in the chest where hopefully the cops couldn't have died instantly.
Nonsense. First, any idiot knows you will be more likely to kill someone if you shoot them in the head. Cops are trained to aim for the torso to be more sure of your shot. I learned this long before the first video game that bothered to distinguish "head shots" came around, and then it was only representing what everyone already knew. If this guy wanted to kill the cop, and was close enough to shoot him in the head, he was going to shoot him in the head.
Having clearly never played the game yourself, let me also say that GTA does not particularly encourage head shots. The basic targeting system does not allow it, and using manual targeting is difficult and dangerous in most firefights. Which is just one small example of the ludicrosity of the statement:
In other words, videogames TRAIN the players to become better and more effective criminals. I don't know about you, but the thought gives me the creeps.
There is no practical real-world skill that you can learn from GTA. Learn how to car-jack? I keep looking for the Triangle button but can't find it. Firing a gun? Holding R1 to target and X to shoot doesn't do anything to teach you how to fire in real life -- I know, I've done both. The only reason it gives you the creeps is because you've never played to know that it is absolutely nothing like real life and there is no transferable skill that you can learn. Anyone who thought they could practice to become a criminal by playing GTA would find themselves sadly mistaken.
Here's the fact: Millions of people play games like GTA. A few perform violent acts that can in some way be described as being like the game. That's pretty shitty for a game that TRAINS you to be a criminal. In fact, that's the exact same ratio of people who end up being violent criminals in the populace at large. Could it... could it be... that games have nothing to do with causing crime, and are nothing but a scapegoat used as a weak defense by the criminal themselves, and by clueless idiots who are incapable of thinking about the true causes of crime?
Yes.
Re:Goddamnit (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Just unbelievable. (Score:3, Insightful)
I like to remember "A Clockwork Orange" when I hear about games, movies, TV, comics, books, etc. causing people to act out. I remember the horrorshow imaginative hallucinations that Alex had after reading the Bible, that he was one of the Roman guards, whipping Christ as he walked past carrying the cross.
There's more violence in the Bible than in most TV shows.
And from the movie, "the big, big, big, big, big money" is very accurate: they're not after what's right, or justice; they're only after money. (His family, that is, who is bringing this suit out of their own greed, and their need to paper over their mistakes made during his upbringing.)