Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Games Seized Following Murder 354

Posted by Zonk
from the dangerous-materials dept.
GamePolitics reports that M-rated games have been taken as evidence a case involving the death of a 55-year old man in Louisiana. The connection? Jack Thompson says: "Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer." GP goes on to point out the lunacy of this claim. From the site: "Funny, that. A quick Google search on 'shot in the face' turns up 921,000 entries."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Games Seized Following Murder

Comments Filter:
  • by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Monday June 05, 2006 @11:40AM (#15472693) Homepage Journal
    in 3.. 2.. 1..
    • C'mon, I can't believe that Dick plays videogames, although it would make sense if he were playing Age of Empires, Warcraft, and the like. I haven't shot anyone in the face. Yet.
      • by rwven (663186) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:06PM (#15472982)
        You just hit the nail on the head. If gamers shoot people in the face, why is it that there are hundreds of millions of gamers and only a handful of them have murdered someone...let alone by shooting them in the face.
        • by drewzhrodague (606182) <drew@nOsPaM.zhrodague.net> on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:20PM (#15473094) Homepage Journal
          Agreed. Does that mean we can shoot Jack Thompson in the face? Maybe this is his way of expressing his need for this. Any takers?

          I can imagine a mob of gamers swarming this guy, all shooting him in the face with those Nintendo light guns.
        • by 88NoSoup4U88 (721233) on Monday June 05, 2006 @01:07PM (#15473457) Homepage
          You just hit the nail on the head. If gamers shoot people in the face, why is it that there are hundreds of millions of gamers and only a handful of them have murdered someone...

          The stats are very much skewed: Stealth games like Metal Gear Solid are getting very popular, so they clearly still go on random murdering sprees; they just got -alot- better at disposing of the bodies/evidence. :D

          Off topic; The [p] -tag now just acts like putting in a linebreak [br] : Weird stuff.

          • by geobeck (924637)

            The [p] tag works normally if you close the previous paragraph with a [/p] (which has been the preferred way to close a paragraph for several years, although unclosed paragraphs still work for the most part.

        • I wonder if, statistically, gamers are more likely to commit murder than non-gamers.

          Why doesn't someone just figure out that statistic and then we'll have an answer to whether games promote violence? Oh, because that would be the logical, non-fearmongering thing to do.
          • Even if it proved to be true, what does that prove? Does it mean that games make people more likely to become murderers, or does murder make people more likely to become gamers? And besides, isn't the key demographic of Sony and MS right now 18-34 year old males? I'm fairly certain that'd be the age and gender of most western violent crimes.

            Correlation does not imply causality.
            • Hey, another one! See my reply to the other "correlation does not imply causality" guy.

              It seems to be fashionable (except among gamers) to just assume that there IS a causal relationship between games and violence without even a correlation to back it up. What an interesting result it would be if there WAS no correlation.
          • I wonder if, statistically, gamers are more likely to commit murder than non-gamers.

            Why doesn't someone just figure out that statistic and then we'll have an answer to whether games promote violence? Oh, because that would be the logical, non-fearmongering thing to do.

            And because that would be like trying to figure out if people who watch television commit violence. Twenty years ago, games were toys and gamers were a small subset of the population. now they have become mainstream entertainment. I'd prob

            • Agreed, you wouldn't want to use a yes/no scale. Better to estimate their time spent gaming per week (say, on a five point scale) then see if increased gaming correlates with increased likelihood to shoot someone in the face. If you DID see a correlation you could go back and look to see if the rate of shooting-people-in-the-face has increased with the growth of the gaming industry or not.
          • Why doesn't someone just figure out that statistic and then we'll have an answer

            They have! [timesonline.co.uk] (that was the first link I found to the story/study).

            Researchers from the University of Oklahoma recently found that two-thirds of school fights were instigated by regular video game players, but only 4% were started by children who had never played such games.

            Two-thirds started by regular video game players! Only 4% by kids who never played such games! Fast, ban them! Ban them NOW!

            But wait, aren't like 80% of kids re
        • There have been hundreds of cases of people shooting people in the face before computers even existed. People have thown acid in people's faces, people have done all sorts of violent things to one another. People are just looking for a scapegoat for violence in our society. Games, guns, whatever. it's all someone else's fault.
    • I was thinking of doing a "b...b...but Clinton".
  • if so, then he must be a murderer too, cause that's a game.
  • Why is that Jack (Score:2, Insightful)

    by moe.ron (953702)
    "Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer."

    Is this a comment on similar mentalities between hitmen and videogamers or is Jack trying to say they're the only people with good enough aim to hit consistent head shots?

    Seriously though, how is this news? If the police are building any sort of murder case against anyone, they are going to sieze everything remotely related to murder and killing. Whether it be videogames, music, movies, books, etc. anything that helps the DA s
    • The way Game Politics puts it, the police seized the games as a result of Thompson's input; if that's correct then he's been influencing police activities, which makes matters more newsworthy.

      TFA: 'The WFPSO took Thompson's information and used it as a basis to search the home of a 16-year-old suspect in the crime. A police official told the newspaper that deputies seized several M-rated video games from the residence. Captain Spence Dilworth, however, drew no conclusions from his findings.'
      • by moe.ron (953702) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:53PM (#15473345)
        This just in: While searching a murder suspects home police have come across various boxes containing data discs. These boxes are covered with violent imagery and words like "Hitman, Grand Theft Auto, and True Crime". While authorities have declined to comment on any connection, we here at the Associated Press feel that without the help of one Jack Thompson, the police officers would have completely overlooked such obscure and truly puzzling pieces of evidence and would have never drawn any connection between them and the suspects alleged violent behavior.

        Also from TFA: "I think (the murder) goes beyond video games, but who's to say?," Dilworth commented, adding that the question of whether video games lead to youth violence might be "more of a debate for the living room rather than the courtroom."

        Doesn't sound like the local police are too amused with Jack Thompson's "theories". Once again, this isn't news because the games that were siezed will play no role in the murder trial. The cops are like, "Yea we found M-rated video games, who cares? The kid confessed."

        Jack Thompson is a crackpot and the only reason he gets any attention at all is because people see his name in an article and suddenly its a top story.
    • Re:Why is that Jack (Score:2, Informative)

      by MonkeyPaw (8286)
      "Seriously though, how is this news? If the police are building any sort of murder case against anyone, they are going to sieze everything remotely related to murder and killing."

      That's true.
      A friend of mines brother and his best friend stabbed someone to death. The police arrested the pair the next day and mostly cleaned out this kids room (he still lived at home). The police took the bathroom sink in the basement next to his room even though it contained no visible trace of blood.

      I guess the police figure
  • by slashflood (697891) <flow@ho[ ]ow.com ['wfl' in gap]> on Monday June 05, 2006 @11:43AM (#15472731) Homepage Journal
    There are clearly some unrelated results from Google search - if you turn off SafeSearch.
    • by ElleyKitten (715519) <kittensunrise@gma i l . com> on Monday June 05, 2006 @11:57AM (#15472872) Journal
      So murder is "safe" but we must be protected from cumshots?

      Yeah, it's hard to even feign surprise, but dammit, things are fucked up.
      • Things sure are odd... sex is much more natural than gunshots to the face, but "oh noes think of the children, we don't want them to see nature (well, okay, cumshots don't really happen in nature, but you know what I'm getting at) but gunshots are okay". With whackos like Jack Thompson running around trying to make things "better", of course things are fudged up. My preference is to just sit back and enjoy the world as it slowly kills my brain.
      • Re:Shot in the face (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Custard (587661) on Monday June 05, 2006 @01:48PM (#15473793) Homepage Journal
        /agree

        I think it's very sad that a violent game about killing police, stealing cars, and shooting pedestrians with shotguns only becomes M-rated if a male character can get intimate with a female character.

        Would you rather expose your kid to sexual themes, or murder themes?
        • ...sin commits you!
        • by shaitand (626655) on Monday June 05, 2006 @11:12PM (#15477386) Journal
          "Would you rather expose your kid to sexual themes, or murder themes?"

          Both? I find that exposing my child to both allows me to make sure that my child has a mature understanding of the matter. I have never understood parents who thought that censoring life from their children would somehow magically result in them being BETTER able to cope when they encounter the censored aspects of life.

          Life is life and kids will discover it, you can be upfront with it from the very beginning (sex is no more difficult for a children to cope with than any other bodily function at a very young age) or you can wait. Waiting presents a wonderful opportunity for thier 5 year old friends to share bad information and misunderstandings, parts or which may not be corrected for years. The older children are the less absolutely they trust their parents and the more they trust friends and other sources of information (the is especially true if parents have told them fairytales and censored their lives as young children). Those misunderstandings could even lead to deep set behavioral patterns since the primarily functions of the brain are still developing when the child learns this information.

          As for violence. Humans are violent creatures. Children will discover violence even if they never saw any outside input. It is only a matter of time before they commit violent acts of their own based on instinct alone. This is again another opportunity to expose them and explain the truth of the world to them. You can argue that children shouldn't have to worry about serial rape and murder. I would counter that neither should you and I. That doesn't change that these things are a fact of life and my child is going to wary of the man trying to coax him or her into a car while your child will be ignorant of the danger.

          Censoring what a child is exposed to is not doing that child a favor, it is promoting ignorance and false values.

  • by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Monday June 05, 2006 @11:45AM (#15472747)
    So what if "shot in the face" turns up 900,000 hits (it only shows 13,000 hits in my browser). "Jews did 911" [google.com] turns up almost 900,000 easily.

    The point of this is that you can't extrapolate something like a Google search into evidence. Police who have experience with crime probably have a somewhat better perspective on the hows and whys of crime than you Joe Searchbot does.
    • by Indefinite, Ephemera (970817) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:10PM (#15473017)
      In this case the claim is that there exists no person who shoots someone in the face and is not a hitman and is not a gamer - so what's required to debunk that claim is a counterexample (someone who shoots someone in the face and is neither a hitman nor a gamer), and only one is logically required; presumably the Google numbers are for rhetorical force. ('How can he have overlooked all these easily found counterexamples?')

      TFA's paragraph in full: 'Funny, that. A quick Google search on "shot in the face" turns up 921,000 entries. Here's a quick sample just from the past week. We see nary a video game or a hitman among them.'
      • How can he have overlooked all these easily found counterexamples?

        The government doesn't have the tools necessary to validate this counter-example. It is clear from the governments desire to get at the logs of google searches they do not have access to google. Otherwise the government could determine from their own firewall and server logs the rate of pr0n links returned from innocuous searches.

      • by Intron (870560) on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:32PM (#15474157)
        It could happen totally by accident. Here are two examples:

        "Oh man, I shot Marvin in the face." - Samuel L. Jackson in Pulp Fiction

        "It was one of the worst days of my life." - Dick Cheney on Fox
        • First off, it was Vincent Vega who shot Marvin, not Jules. But no, ya gotta blame the brutha. I see how you is.

          Second, considering that Vega was a hitman, and Cheney is an avid gamer (what, you didn't know?) this isn't the best set of counter-examples.
        • by identity0 (77976) on Monday June 05, 2006 @09:17PM (#15476939) Journal
          You, sir, are a genius for somehow linking Samuel L. Jackson, the most badass gangsta on film, and Dick Cheney, the palest, stiffest Vice-President of The United States ever - and having it be totally on-topic! And modded Insightful! I salute you, good sir.

          However, I should point out that it was, in fact, the John Travolta character who shot Marvin in the face. I will not even attempt to think about the implications of a John Travolta-Dick Cheney connection, which would be truely frightening.

          Now for a on-topic addition:

          "Oh sorry, didn't mean to shoot you in the face yet" - Ron Jeremy
          "Mr. Arafat? Hey, guess what I'm doing right now!" - Bill Clinton
      • In this case the claim is that there exists no person who shoots someone in the face and is not a hitman and is not a gamer - so what's required to debunk that claim is a counterexample (someone who shoots someone in the face and is neither a hitman nor a gamer), and only one is logically required;

        Which makes it trivial.

        Crooks of all sorts have been routinely shooting for the face since a media blitz made them aware that essentially all police (and some civilians) are routinely wearing kevlar bullet-resista
    • by Dmala (752610) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:14PM (#15473051)
      The point of saying this is to highlight the absurdity of the comment. There have clearly been thousands of incidents where someone got shot in the face. Is it really plausible to believe that all of them involved a hitman or a videogamer?
    • > "Jews did 911" turns up almost 900,000 easily ...may be more meaningful than you think. Everytime I see a car accident in downtown L.A. involving someone Jewish*, the first thing that happens is someone dials 911 regardless of how minor the damage is.

      *Okay, this also happens with any other ethnic/racial group, but I just wanted to make my point.

      Solomon Chang
    • Right. But Jack Thompson is not a police officer, nor have his past comments led me to think he is even remotely experienced with the subject, or even really a good lawyer (if he were, he would recognize the fallacy of correlation [wikipedia.org] and provide some evidence to back up his claims.) The police will often sieze anything they can get their hands on, whether it is useful or not.

      I'm willing to bet the only reason they bothered talking to Jack about this was to get him to say something outrageous so that Slashdot a
  • by Surt (22457) on Monday June 05, 2006 @11:45AM (#15472751) Homepage Journal
    Hitman, or gamer? Hitman might be pretty accurate, I guess.
    • I always equate "Hitman" with "gamer" anyways, prefering stealth-based games myself...

      I really need to get out more...
    • He's obviously a gamer; gaming for actual game.

      I guess we need to pass laws against these dangerous M-rated outdoor hunting games that encourage over-aged gamers to shoot their partners in the face, then blame "hunter's tunnel vision" for their own carelessness.

  • Please. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 05, 2006 @11:45AM (#15472756)
    A real gamer wouldn't even be strong enough to lift the gun.
  • by smbarbour (893880) on Monday June 05, 2006 @11:47AM (#15472770)
    But how many are "gun-related"? I can think of a 3 letter word that would precede "shot" that would account for that number of hits.
  • by Vo0k (760020) on Monday June 05, 2006 @11:54AM (#15472851) Journal
    Every gamer and hitman knows you shoot in the BACK of the head!
  • Hitmen? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Scrameustache (459504) * on Monday June 05, 2006 @11:58AM (#15472892) Homepage Journal
    Since when do hitmen execute people by shooting them in the face? Back of the head/neck is traditional.

    Jack don't know anything.
  • Funny... I'm sure historically plenty of people in wartime have been shot or shot people in the face and i'm reasonably sure the vast majority of them were not videogamers or "hitmen." Heck, the movies and TV portray people getting "shot in the face" all the time.

    We can only hope the Judge and Jury in this trial are not too stupid to see the error of a statement like that. While the accused does deserve his "reward" for his crimes, i think blaming games for this is utterly ridiculous. People need to sta
  • by Mister Whirly (964219) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:04PM (#15472953) Homepage
    A videogamer could never shoot someone in the face - there isn't a "crosshair" to aim with in real life....
    • There is often a crosshair if one uses a sniper rifle with a mounted scope; telescopic or not.

      Furthermore, some pistols and sidearms can be mounted with scopes/laser sights too. /pedantry
  • Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vo0k (760020) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:04PM (#15472955) Journal
    Most hitmen avoid headshots. Very messy and often with a good chance of survival of the subject. Load the brain with 5 bullets and the victim may still live, despite losing the ability to speak spanish, tell apart apples from oranges and move left leg. They will likely enter a coma though, which looks very much like they are dead, and they will come to and start talking at the least convenient moment. Real hitmen avoid headshots (from close distance at least, sniping is a different thing) and definitely prefer going for the heart. Nobody survives a hole in the heart and placing the third bullet precisely in the heart from a short distance is quite easy once shock from the first two paralyses the victim.

    On the other hand, most games register heart shot as just another chest shot, scoring pretty low damage, while headshots, from any direction, including the face count as serious damage multiplier.

    That would narrow it down... ;)
    • by slashflood (697891) <flow@ho[ ]ow.com ['wfl' in gap]> on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:49PM (#15473317) Homepage Journal
      Note to myself: never mark Vo0k as foe [slashdot.org].
    • The other reason hitmen avoid headshots is due to prooving the kill. If you blow away the face, the body could be anybody.
  • GamePolitics? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Chrismith (911614)
    Not that I'm doubting the validity of the article (at least, any more so than usual), but couldn't the submitter have found a more reputable source than a news blog on LiveJournal? You'd think that a real news site would have, y'know, a real news site.
    • I'm a regular reader/commenter on the site, and from what I've seen, Dennis (the guy running it) is a pretty good journalist. He has free-lance columns in a couple of real newspapers, and although GamePolitics is more of a hobby for him, he's pretty good about doing his research and (for the most part) keeping his coverage objective. He's also frequently linked by blogs such as Kotaku and is occasionally quoted by the mainstream press.

      Another reason why GamePolitics is a good source for something like
  • One Question... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Digital Vomit (891734) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:14PM (#15473053) Homepage Journal

    One Question: when is Jack Thompson going to prison? His abuse of the legal system and profound negative influence on society has to end.

    The surest sign that the litigation indust--, er, justice system in the US is broken is that this guy hasn't been disbarred yet.

  • ...make me Glad my Villian in "City of Villians" is Jackie Thompson.

    Why Jackie you ask, because the name is just different enough to avoid litigation, and since he is a assassin with martial art moves that he learned from playing "Ninja Gaiden" for 12 hours("Jackie Chan's Action Kung Fu" wouldn't fit in his bio since it rambles much like the man it spoofs), the name just suits him better too.
  • by Mr. Samuel (950418) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:24PM (#15473128)
    Jack Thompson is an absurd excuse for a lawyer. The entire gamer Internet community should be well aware of this by now. His actual motivations for his war on video games probably go no further than a quest for power and publicity. Unless, of course, he's actually out of touch with reality to the extent of believing what he says.

    So what's our best defense against him? Frankly, I think the last thing Jack Thompson would want is to be ignored. He probably likes the animosity he's building with the gaming community, and he'll like making headlines many times more. Let's just ignore the fellow, and at some point he may start campaigning against diet sodas or the ulterior motives of figure skaters ("Nobody wears blades that sharp...unless they want to kill.").

    • by Red Flayer (890720) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:42PM (#15473256) Journal
      "Let's just ignore the fellow, and at some point he may start campaigning against diet sodas or the ulterior motives of figure skaters"

      I'm sure he likes the animosity somewhat. But gamers are not who Jack is targeting for action -- he is targeting non-gamers to get them to pass laws we (in general) do not like.

      If *everyone* would ignore him, he'd no longer be a pest. But the major problem is that there are plenty of people who either agree with his opinions, or too apathetic to disagree with him. So, if you want Jack gone, you've got to play his game and beat him at it -- make sure Joe Sixpack understands that games don't kill people, irresponsible parents and unstable kids and easy access to guns and a ton of other factors (and sometimes just accidents!) kill people.
    • So what's our best defense against him?

      Shooting him in the face?

  • by MaWeiTao (908546) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:33PM (#15473194)
    These people really need some perspective. Let's say games contribute to a few murders every year. Of all the murders committed in the US in a year, what percentage of those were motivated by games assuming there's even a clear link? I'd venture to say it isn't even as high as 1%.

    But we have this stupid jerk who's gone on a personal crusade against games. He'd better serve the public by going after crime in general. But I guess that wouldn't grab the headlines quite like his vendetta against games.

    As for the police seizing games for evidence, I think thats perfectly reasonable. I expect the police to leave no stone unturned in any murder investigation.
    • by Aladrin (926209) on Monday June 05, 2006 @01:16PM (#15473524)
      The problem is that if we (as gamers and other computer users) ignore him, he'll manage to convince people that he is right and we won't be there to provide the counterbalance.

      We can't afford to ignore him, but we CAN afford to make as much fun of him as possible and make sure EVERYONE knows just exactly how preposterous everything he says is. This means everything from simple 'gamers have a tendency to copy their games' to 'gamers are evil, disgusting creatures that would as soon shoot you in the face as look at you' and everything in-between. His tamest-sounding speech is poison to the minds of anyone involved with law. Every single thing that he gets someone to believe is a blow to the freedom of gamers around the USA. (Luckily, he hasn't spread world-wide yet.)

      We cannot afford to be lax because the only 'experts' in this field are us. If we ignore him, he gets to run rampant.
  • I really wish we could all ignore Jack Thompson and his misplaced histrionics.

    I wish he had half the dignity of Al Sharpton, who some would say was for a long time a 'racism' troll as much as JT is a 'videogame' troll. Both hop on sensationalist events to push their agenda, pandering to the people who think like them, while ignoring tangential issues, and in many cases, the truth.

    I'm not trying to be flamebait here -- my point is that many of the people who listen to/respect Jack Thompson dislike Al Shar
  • How come... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by nsmike (920396)
    How come every time I see a picture of Jack Thompson it looks like he's pinching a rather large and stubborn loaf?

    In all seriousness, I'd like to see just how many "video gamers" were convicted of shooting someone in the face.

    I'd also like to see how many people have been shot in the face prior to violent video games. Throw in how many violent crimes were committed in the US since the advent of violent video games vs. prior to violent video games. Add to that the average yearly income of the person r
  • Logic 101 (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anti_Climax (447121) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:40PM (#15473233)
    "Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer."
    Ok Class, I'd like you to open your Logical Arguments texts to the chapter of fallacies and begin reading from the heading False Choice [wikipedia.org]
  • Does this count? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Klowner (145731) on Monday June 05, 2006 @12:50PM (#15473320) Homepage
    What about the backside of the head. Does that count too?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Lincoln [wikipedia.org]

    Someone care to edit that wiki page to include Booth's suggested "mad 1337 GTA sk!llzs"?
  • ehh? (Score:2, Funny)

    by jtalerico (950602)
    "Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer." Nobody masturbates unless they are bored or a videogamer. Nobody bathes unless they are dirty or a videogamer. etc.. Forget the terrorists, I am worried about all the videogamers out there!
  • The Mozambique Drill [wikipedia.org] is a 2+1 drill, where you fire 2 to center mass and 1 to the head. It is designed to stop those people hopped up on adrenalin or drugs. You generally fire "into the face" for this drill. Jack is really out there. He is becomming more shrill and pathetic as time goes on.
  • Trends (Score:5, Interesting)

    by giminy (94188) on Monday June 05, 2006 @01:04PM (#15473432) Homepage Journal
    Google trends shows [google.com] that there is no correlation between video games and being shot in the face. I rest my case.
  • Release a mode for the Windows Solitaire game so the cards feature sado-masochistic gay porn. Perhaps if the asshole runs with it, Vista will be rated NC17.
  • I'm pretty sure, I have seen Elmer Fudd, Daffy Duck, and a number of other popular cartoon characters get shot in the face plenty of times. Does this mean the murderer watches Loony Tunes?
  • more logic (Score:4, Funny)

    by matt328 (916281) on Monday June 05, 2006 @01:21PM (#15473564)
    "Nobody shoots anybody in the face unless you're a hitman or a videogamer."

    And no one utters anything that fucking stupid unless they're pushing an agenda, or a lawyer, or both.
  • by Hervard (933602) on Monday June 05, 2006 @01:26PM (#15473607)
    Jack Thompson shoots himself in the foot all the time.
  • While a web search on Google turns up a lot of hits, a Google News search is much more focused and probably relevant.

    "gunshot to the face" [google.com]

    This turns up 5 hits from May 5 to May 29th. Four of them in the US and one in South Africa. Not one seems to mention a hitman or a gamer.
  • by OmgTEHMATRICKS (836103) on Monday June 05, 2006 @02:07PM (#15473956) Journal
    The better question is: How did the murderer lug around 921,000 rounds of ammuniition without being noticed?
  • I saw part of a show on the discovery channel about SWAT teams, and the sniper on the team was talking about how his target is the triangle made from the temples and the bottom of the nose.

    They also showed him shoot a practice target as his team broke down a door and headed into the room; with his bullet traveling within a foot of his team members on its way to the target.
  • by RyoShin (610051)
    Did they take his TV, too? What about violent R-rated movies? What about books that describe murder in detail (Tom Clancy is a bit guilty of this)?

    I'm trying to figure out if this is Louisiana stupidity or if they're just absorbing some of it from Florida.

    By the way, Jack Thompson should die in a fi-*BLAM* AH I DIDN'T MEAN IT DON'T TAKE ME TO J@)&%)#&*%SIGNAL INTERRUPTED
  • I've been playing way too much Oblivion, and I've already cast various Destruction spells on three people who annoyed me at work today. Well, I waved my hand and they looked at me funny when nothing happened, but you get my point... or you would if I had one. Anyway, I have to go turn my lunch into an invisibility potion so no one gives me anything to do this afternoon.

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson

Working...