Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
PlayStation (Games) Government The Courts Entertainment Games News

Take-Two Interactive and Sony Sued Over GTA 902

An anonymous reader writes "Apparently Take-Two Interactive is being sued by the parents of two kids who killed a man. I remember reading about the killing incident a few weeks ago, but this is the first I've read about an actual lawsuit. The part that I found most interesting was that Sony will also be named in the lawsuit because GTA was exclusive to their console." Update: 09/18 16:27 GMT by M : The Independent has moved/deleted the story on their site, breaking our link. We've already mentioned this story anyway.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Take-Two Interactive and Sony Sued Over GTA

Comments Filter:
  • Parents (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Cockney ( 102529 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:36AM (#6993282) Homepage
    Perhaps the parents should sue themselves for buying the cosole and the game in the first place?
    • Re:Parents (Score:5, Funny)

      by Vraylle ( 610820 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:39AM (#6993310) Homepage
      Or maybe we /.ers could file a class-action suit against the parents for perpetuating the moron gene?
      • Re:Parents (Score:5, Insightful)

        by TopShelf ( 92521 ) * on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:45AM (#6993927) Homepage Journal
        Oops... except it's not the parents who are suing - it's the victims and their families.

        That said, the obvious point is that suing the parents serves no purpose. Suing megacorporations over something which has no possible positive PR value will result in a nice-sized settlement.

        The only real winners here will be the lawyers.
        • Re:Parents (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Geek of Tech ( 678002 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:52AM (#6993995) Homepage Journal
          Now if I recall, GTA is rated MA (Mature), so you're not supposed to play it if you're less then 18. If you still play it anyway and then kill someone, doesn't the lawsuit potential disappear, since Take Two had already said not to play if you are less than 18?

          • Re:Parents (Score:5, Interesting)

            by TopShelf ( 92521 ) * on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:02AM (#6994085) Homepage Journal
            I'm sure the plaintiffs will contend that merely rating the game as mature doesn't absolve the defendants of responsibility. They would propose that further steps could have been taken...
            • Re:Parents (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:18AM (#6994248)
              What more could Sony and Take-Two do to have prevented this? Visit each household and ensure that all parents are doing thier job?

              At what point are parents responsible for thier own easily influenced children?

              I'm sorry, maybe I'm just cold hearted, but I strongly believe that no human being should have to be told to NOT fire a firearm at another non-aggressive human being. If they DO have to be told, they deserve to either be put away or put down.

              Screw the kids. They fucked up, and now they'll pay the price. Screw the parents. They fucked up and should not be allowed to breed.
              • Re:Parents (Score:5, Insightful)

                by Firehawke ( 50498 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @11:05AM (#6994653) Journal
                I'm going to respectfully disagree. I believe children need to be told once, twice, however many times it takes for it to sink in. It's not immediately obvious to a kid that guns kill permanently.

                However, I do agree that it is the parents' responsibility to teach their children, and that by having failed to do so, the parents should be the ones held responsible along with their children.
                • Re:Parents (Score:5, Insightful)

                  by znaps ( 470170 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @11:58AM (#6995250)
                  It's not obvious to a 14 and 16 y/o that guns kill permanently? I don't agree. Maybe to a 10 year old. What they may not have realised, though, is that they are responsible for their actions.
                • Re:Parents (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by drsmithy ( 35869 )
                  I'm going to respectfully disagree. I believe children need to be told once, twice, however many times it takes for it to sink in. It's not immediately obvious to a kid that guns kill permanently.

                  Maybe to a five year old. And even most of them, by that age or thereabouts, has had a pet die.

                  If a child hasn't figured out by the time their age hits double digits that dead means dead, forever, then they are clearly unsuitable for inclusion in civilised society and no amount of pleading, poking, prodding or

            • Re:Parents (Score:5, Interesting)

              by FuzzyBad-Mofo ( 184327 ) <fuzzybad@gmaCURIEil.com minus physicist> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @12:19PM (#6995468)

              The game store is supposed to check ID for MA-rated games. I think the question should be, "how did these kids come into posession of this game in the first place?"

            • Re:Parents (Score:3, Insightful)

              by mausmalone ( 594185 )

              They would propose that further steps could have been taken...

              Let's brainstorm a few "further steps," m'kay?

              Make the game expensive, so that immature kids will have to drag their parents into the stores to buy the game. wait... no.. already done. And if you're sending your kid off with $50 walking-around money, you're a horrible parent.

              Make violent games contain lessons about how bad people get their come-uppance. no.. wait... anyone who's actually played GTA3 knows that violence perpetuates viole

    • Re:Parents (Score:5, Insightful)

      by KernelHappy ( 517524 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:47AM (#6993372) Homepage
      Well that does raise an interesting question. If Sony is liable because they made the console, wouldn't the parents be liable because they made the kids?
      • by Blue Stone ( 582566 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:11AM (#6993581) Homepage Journal
        In related news, RockStar Games sues The United States of America, for influencing them in making the GTA series.
      • Re:Parents (Score:5, Funny)

        by haystor ( 102186 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:14AM (#6993596)
        I tend to think of the McDonald's lawsuit by the people that just found out the food is bad for them.

        I used to think that all those suits should be thrown out of court immediately, but I've changed my opinion.

        They should be given class action status. They should win. McDonald's will then be assigned all responsibility for every patron's health. McDonald's will decide your every dietary intake. McDonald's will assign workout schedules which you must follow under penalty of law.

        I suppose someting similar can be worked out for Sony and kids. Sony will assign all extra-curricular activities.
      • Re:Parents (Score:5, Funny)

        by TwistedSquare ( 650445 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:19AM (#6993640) Homepage
        So if I actually had kids who went out and copycatted these kids, could I sue the original parents/kids for inspiring these crimes and claim back all the money they sued. It could form a chain... with the people committing the most recent crime always having the money. This is all madness...
      • Re:Parents (Score:5, Interesting)

        by AlecC ( 512609 ) <aleccawley@gmail.com> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:54AM (#6994013)
        And the manufacturers of the gun which they used - which means the NRA shoudl back Sony on this one, for fear of setting a precedent they really wouldn't like.
      • Re:Parents (Score:3, Insightful)

        Sure, the parents should be liable. If the kids bought the game themselves, then the store that sold it to them should be liable, too.

        But Sony has much, much, MUCH more money then the parents. Lawyers won't sue if they won't get paid.

        The article pointed out that GTA is the best-selling computer game of all time. With all those people playing it, I fully expect a wave of GTA-inspired crime to sweep the nation. I mean, if the game is that bad...

        Though GTA does have a bad reputation. I was playing last
    • Re:Parents (Score:3, Insightful)

      by acidrain69 ( 632468 )
      And for buying a game for 18+ years of age and giving it to 14 & 15 year olds.
    • Re:Parents (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FileNotFound ( 85933 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:14AM (#6993604) Homepage Journal
      GTA is rated M. For 17 plus. Not ONE of those kids was 17 or older.

      End of story. End of lawsuit.
      • So what... (Score:3, Interesting)

        by xant ( 99438 )
        the fuck does that have to do with anything? Suing Rockstar games is retarded, but so is saying that a letter on the box intended to restrict access has any basis in reality. Are you saying that there's a direct correlation between getting access to entertainment targeted at older people, and shooting people? That, had the rating been obeyed, these crimes wouldn't have happened?

        I say no. This argument has no scientific basis whatsoever. The rating on the box is there to appease parents, not to prevent
    • Lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)

      by aborchers ( 471342 )
      I was thinking we should make a videogame where the mission objective is to kill ambulance-chasing lawyers.

      What a recursion that would set off...

  • Military Training? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by dbitter1 ( 411864 ) * <slashdotNO@SPAMcarnivores-r.us> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:36AM (#6993286)
    He will also point to the Columbine High School massacre in Colorado in 1999, when Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold shot 13 people dead. Both boys were fans of the video game Doom, which has been used to train US soldiers in lethal combat.

    IAXM (I *AM* Ex-Military), and I don't seem to remember combat training for shooting floating eyeballs and zombies with RPGs...

    Strangely, shooting a gun required things like using sights rather than just pointing in the right (compass) direction... Ah the old days...

    • by Spudley ( 171066 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:47AM (#6993381) Homepage Journal
      Zobmies with RPGs?

      Back in my day it was the RPGs that had Zombies.

      (uh.... you were talking about role-playing games, weren't you?)
    • by macdaddy ( 38372 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:13AM (#6994204) Homepage Journal
      I love it when the media pull a stunt like they did @ Columbine. Any idea how old DOOM was in 1999. It was 6 years [mobygames.com] old. 6! Do you think any self-respecting gamer (especially a teen) would play a 6 year old game? No. If I went out and shot somebody today the media would say it's because I played Pac Man in my youth. It's utterly irrelevant. It sells newspapers though.
    • Thank you for your service. Those of us who don't have to serve because people like you did really appreciate it. So in all sincerity, thanks.
      • by WNight ( 23683 )
        I have to second this. These days the military takes a lot of flak because they get used as the government's international policy enforcement arm for unpopular policy. It keeps people from seeing what an essential job they do and how screwed we'd all be if they weren't there keeping us safe.

        Thanks guys.
    • I think that only people who have never fired a gun could imagine that a video game is good training... here's a perfect example: I can walk into an arcade, and finish the game "Time Crisis" (a shooting game which uses a foot pedal to reload/duck, and a plastic handgun). It takes a long time, and, maybe because I'm a girl, people will often stop to watch.

      They ask me if I'm a cop, or a handgun expert. They make comments about not getting in my way. It is people like these who believe that video games ar

    • by Eil ( 82413 )

      IAXM as well (though that doesn't really apply here...), but this argument oringally came from Army psychologist Lt Col David Grossman, who has been the flag-carrier for the whole anti-violent video game movement, if you want to call it that. He says that games like DOOM are murder simulators (and I paraphrase here) because the games teach the same killing techniques that the military does.

      There was a school shooting, can't remember exactly where, where the kid shot and killed like 7 out of 8 of the studen
  • by phunhippy ( 86447 ) * <zavoid&gmail,com> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:36AM (#6993287) Journal
    The part that I found most interesting was that Sony will also be named in the lawsuit because GTA was exclusive to their console.

    Does that mean Microsoft can be added to the lawsuit in 2004? They have tons of cash and would be a great target to add to this frivilous suit.

  • Why those parents? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by slavemowgli ( 585321 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:37AM (#6993289) Homepage
    Why the parents of the kids who committed those killings? I would have expected the relatives of the victims to sue Take-Two, but the relatives of the killers?
    • As someone mentioned two weeks ago in a post:
      Those kids and their families are "white trash" in other words they have little or no money.
      The relatives of the victims decided to go where they could get some cash in the unlikely event of victory.
    • by Palos ( 527071 ) * on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:44AM (#6993347)
      From the article:
      "Mr Hamel, a nurse, was killed while driving home to Knoxville, Tennessee. Miss Bede, who was travelling in another car with her boyfriend, was seriously injured and has eight fragments of shrapnel in her pelvis."
      "Miss Bede and the family of Aaron Hamel plan to sue Take-Two Interactive Software, which publishes Grand Theft Auto, for liability in a wrongful death lawsuit. Take-Two owns Rockstar Games, which is based in Edinburgh and designed the first version of the game in 1997. Sony will also be named in the lawsuit, because Grand Theft Auto was made exclusively for its Play- Station consoles. Sony declined to comment on the case."
  • by CGP314 ( 672613 ) <CGP@ColinGregor y P a lmer.net> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:37AM (#6993290) Homepage
    Oblig Penny Arcade [penny-arcade.com]
  • by Alranor ( 472986 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:37AM (#6993291)
    So if this game is so bad that it caused these kids to go out and commit this crime (no, I don't actually think there's a causal link) , then WHY WERE THE PARENTS LETTING THEIR KIDS PLAY IT!
    • by p3d0 ( 42270 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:54AM (#6993445)
      Right on. I'm a parent, and I'm appalled that these parents think the whole world should be legally obliged to keep their children safe while they don't lift a finger to raise their own children in a responsible way.

      There's a happy medium here, and it's well toward the side of the parent. Society ought to do a reasonable effort not to put undue burdens on parents; for instance, I think it's appropriate that the 6:00 news gives a warning before presenting stories that may be upsetting to children (eg. the death of Mr. Rogers). But having said that, it's my responsibility to keep my son from harm where possible, and teach him to keep himself from harm otherwise.

      Prepare not the path for the child; prepare the child for the path.

      Sometimes I think these parents ought to be in prison along with (or instead of) the kids.

      • by leifm ( 641850 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:17AM (#6993631)
        There is obviously something very wrong with both of these kids. 16 and 14 year olds know what they are doing, know right/wrong. And they definitely know that saying GTA made them do it takes focus off of them. It would seem the parents didn't do their job, but as old as these two are I say most of the blame should fall on their head.
    • by Original Buddha ( 673223 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:58AM (#6993485)
      Aren't games that are rated mature supposed to be only purchased my adults? Can we then safely assume the childrens parents bought the game?

      I've actually heard a mother in EB say something along the lines of "I'll be mother of the year when I buy my child this game" when buying GTA3.
  • Dumbass (Score:5, Funny)

    by DrugCheese ( 266151 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:37AM (#6993296)
    Reminds me of a great bumper stick I had just seen recently, read:

    DUMBASS
    It's Lack of Parenting
    NOT
    Video Games

  • Dupe? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Palos ( 527071 ) * on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:38AM (#6993299)
    This sounds very similar if not identical to Kids Kill, Victim Sues Game Maker [slashdot.org].
  • by Heem ( 448667 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:39AM (#6993308) Homepage Journal
    We should also sue the electric company, for without their power they couldnt play the game. And oh yea, lets not leave out the TV maufacturer. Maybe we should even sue the person we bought the house from, since this is where they played the game.

    Seriously, give me a break. How about parents stop blaming everyone but THEMSELVES for their kids actions.

  • 2x10^7 (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CGP314 ( 672613 ) <CGP@ColinGregor y P a lmer.net> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:39AM (#6993312) Homepage
    Grand Theft Auto and its three sequels are designed in Britain and have topped the UK and US games charts, selling more than 20 million copies in the past five years.

    And how many of those 2x10^7 kids became killers?


    Yeah, that's what I thought.
    • Re:2x10^7 (Score:5, Funny)

      by somethingwicked ( 260651 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:08AM (#6993560)
      What did you call those kids???

      I am so used to seeing Haxorz on /. using their 1337 speak that I REALLY had to look at your 2x10^7 (What WORD is that supposed to be???) for quite a while before I figured it out...

      You were just using good ol' geekspeak!! Rock on!
  • by Junior J. Junior III ( 192702 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:40AM (#6993317) Homepage
    Sony isn't being sued because GTA was PS2-only, they're being sued because GTA was available on the PS2.

    If it had been available on other platforms, the other companies probably would be named in the suit also.

    Of course, that's stupid if you assume (as is most plausible) that the kids probably only would have played the game on a single platform of their choice, whatever they happened to own.

    But then, the very idea of suing a game manufacturer because their game inspired real-life crime is stupid.

    People are responsible for their actions. Actually committing a crime? That's a crime. Depicting fictionalized crime as a form of entertainment? Not a crime. There shouldn't be any civil liability either -- all liability should fall on the heads of the dumbasses who thought it'd be a good idea to imitate pixels.
  • by Kierthos ( 225954 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:41AM (#6993320) Homepage
    Right, because, obviously, America's children are so influenced by everything they see or hear that it must be the game's fault. Sure, the kids say they were trying to recreate scenes from GTA, but come on... this shows a serious lack of the consequences of their actions, not any sort of thing that GTA will help or hinder.

    If console and computer games can so easily influence kids, then how come we don't see hoards of them acting out Everquest or Soulcalibur scenes? Where are all the kids running around collecting rings after playing Sonic for five hours in a row? Huh? Answer me that...

    This is nothing more then an attempt to shift the blame. Parents don't want to think that their kids could ever do this on their own, someone or something must have "made them do it". Sorry, Mr. and Mrs. Buckner... your kid is fucked up. He deserves to go to jail and learn the consequences of his actions.

    As for the lawsuit, I hope it summarily thrown out.

    Kierthos
    • by ruiner13 ( 527499 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:21AM (#6993666) Homepage
      "Right, because, obviously, America's children are so influenced by everything they see or hear..."

      Um, you seen MTV lately? I'm really starting to think that the youth of america DO NOT have minds of their own, they just inherit personalities from TV. Do I think that the game makers should be sued? Nope, if anything the family of the deceased should be suing the parents of the brainless kids for what is an obvious case of lack of parenting. I kinda think this murder was a cry for help so absent mommy and daddy would be forced to spend some time with them.

  • the game company (take two) probably doesn't have that much money. but sony does.

    i hope this gets tossed out of court. fast.

    eric
  • Mature Rating (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SnowWolf2003 ( 692561 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:43AM (#6993341)
    Doesn't GTA have a mature rating?

    Either way, a game isn't going to make some kid go out and pick up a gun and start killing people. There were serious problems there before the kid started playing the game. This is the parents trying to deflect the blame away from their poor parenting skills.

    You also have to ask where these kids got the guns from. What parent leaves guns lying around that their kids can get access to.

    Take responsibility for your own actions and stop trying to pass the buck.
    • Re:Mature Rating (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Thinko ( 615319 )
      I think this is a very interesting point, where were the Parents when this was happening?

      Who's gun(s) were used, and WHY did the Children have access to them?

      I see this as gross negligence on the part of the Parents, if not for the lack of Monitoring of their Children, and the responsibility of their actions, but for the ease of access to the Gun(s) and Ammunition.

      The fact that the game is rated Mature, and that these Children had access to it can also be blamed on the Parents:

      If the

      Parents were aware

  • by LordYUK ( 552359 ) <jeffwright821@noSPAm.gmail.com> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:44AM (#6993345)
    So if you rape someone, can you sue the Porn Industry because they sometimes portray rough sex?

    If you run someone over in your car, can you sue the makers of Matchbox cars because you used to run over your GI Joes or whatever with them?

    Lets just sue {insert deity here} for creating these people in the first place... maybe we should sue the aliens that put us here, or the cosmic rock dust or whatever it was...

    These people need to be smacked. A good pimp smack.

    I mean, what the hell? People have been shooting people for years, GTA is nothing new. Its just got better graphics.

    How rediculous.
  • i got a new plan:

    1.) buy gta 3

    2.) kill that bitch english teacher who always marked me down for incorrect semicolon usage ( damned c++ syntax leaking into my writing )

    3.) parents sue take two/sony

    4.) parents pay bail

    5.) runaway to southeastern mexico and live it up on a private beach under the name 'juan sanchez'
  • by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:44AM (#6993349) Homepage Journal
    if they would've completed the mission's objectives. The giant MISSION FAILED that popped over their heads should've been a give away.

    *runs up to passanger side door of police cruiser and tries to open door; runs to drivers side and drives away*
  • by Ducati_749S ( 646019 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:44AM (#6993354)
    Wouldn't that be a refreshing take on these foolish lawsuits? Have the game developer team up with Social Services and sue the parents for doing such a poor job raising their children that they would commit murder. Having the parents suggest that a video game could cause them to commit such an act only strengthens the case that they were unfit parents.
  • by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:45AM (#6993357) Homepage Journal

    Where were the parents of the two accused killers when they were playing GTA in the first place? Yet another example of the "Victim Culture" the legal system has steered us towards.
  • rating system (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    did the parents not see the huge M on the game meaning MATURE. Maybe the government should take the kids away form the parents. how come parents that hit their kids (and the kids hit other people) have the blame put on them. but (thank you mrs clinton, *sarcasm there*) when the government has a system in place to allow them to make better decisions about what their kids watch its the game companies fault. PARENTS IT'S YOUR OWN F___ING FAULT. YOU ALLOWED THEM TO PLAY THE GAME. now please be quiet and stop
  • Irony (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:48AM (#6993383)
    Blair and Bush kill thousands of Iraqi civilians in a war based on illusion and fabrication and the term 'acceptable collateral damage' is applied.

    2 kids pop one person and Sony/Take-Two are claimed as responsible for the unprovoked violence.

    The world is schizoprhenic...into madness we will all descend...
  • by FearUncertaintyDoubt ( 578295 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:49AM (#6993395)
    now, if GTA is liable for $100 million for encouraging that behavior...

    George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, and Dick Cheney are in for at least $300 mil for setting a bad example for our youth by starting a violent unprovoked war in the middle east

    CNN owes $500 mil for it's gratuitous, jingoistic, spoon-fed-propaganda coverage of the war

    ...and Fox News owes $750 mil

    I figure that the parents of the kids gotta be in for about $2.5 billion apiece

    And Joshua and William Buckner, since they are the ones who actually committed the crime, are in for $400 billion each.

  • Observation (Score:4, Informative)

    by LittleGuy ( 267282 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:49AM (#6993396)
    Referring to The Manchurian Candidate, a 1962 film in which American soldiers are brainwashed into becoming fighting machines in the Korean war, Mr Thompson said: "We have got a nation of Manchurian Candidates who are training on these video games."

    Next on the list of plantiffs -- the Bicycle Playing Card Company.
  • by principio ( 558251 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:53AM (#6993438) Journal
    Oh, wait. They do.

    So, the parents buy a game that states persons under 18 should not use the game w/o parental supervision. Then they let the kids play the game unsupervised, knowing (at least from the game packaging) the the game is violent. Oh, and the kids also have access to a rifle, which they are too young to legally possess in Tenn. This is who's fault again?

    Somebody call the Department of Family and Childrens Services.
  • by Hieronymus Howard ( 215725 ) * on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:53AM (#6993440)
    Why sue the companies who produce games, but not the company who manufactured the gun that these kids used?

    HH
    --
    • There have been a number of lawsuits in teh past and it is generally held that the makers of a gun are not responsible for those that use it. They just make a tool, if you abuse it, that's your fault. Given the amount of precident, it'd be hard to go against that.

      Also, this is the US, you have a better than average chance of having one or more people on the jury that either own a gun, support gun ownership, support the constitution, or all of the above.

      Video games are a newer target, and there isn't the c
  • by heironymouscoward ( 683461 ) <heironymouscowar ... .com minus punct> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:54AM (#6993447) Journal
    It's a standard reaction on behalf of the parents and a sad one. There are kids who will go out and do terrible things, but violence is not exactly a new thing in human history. If anything, todays' societies are remarkably non-violent compared to past ones.

    For the parents - especially of the killers - it's an attempt to find blame somewhere. I feel sorry for them: since Freud's time, parents have been told "you are responsible for the way your kids turn out", when in fact many studies show that parents are amazingly irrelevant to their children's character. One long twin study showed approximately 50% coming from genes, 45% from unknown sources but presumably peer influence, and 5% from parents.

    There is violence in our genes, but it generally needs a certain kind of culture to bring it out. The place to look for the causes of such killings are the youth cultures these kids hung-out in. There is no evidence at all that violent games or movies influence children, but it seems clear that violent children prefer to express themselves through violent games, virtual or real.

    Court cases like this resolve absolutely nothing, because they divert the discussion in meaningless directions. Let's ban all violent games and movies... OK, will that change anything? Take a look at (random selection from a large pool) Uganda, where the kids watch no movies at all, yet 10,000 young (5-12) killers roam the north.

    It is very difficult to change a violent culture, but it is possible.

    The first thing is to understand the way violence is propagated. Like all youth cultures, it goes from youth to youth, bypassing all adult control. You have to work at this level, thus.

    The second thing is to understand how individuals get drawn into violent behaviour that reinforces itself and finally becomes habitual. Can a young man turn to authority for fair protection? If not, he is more likely to use his own force for self-protection. Can a young man who uses drugs turn to authority for help? If not, he is likely to resort to retribution and violence. Can a young man escape from a violent or oppressive environment? If not, he will eventually give up on himself and "go postal", taking his own life but first taking the lives of as many of his peers as he can, in an attempt to regain some face.

    I think it's clear that the rigid and somewhat intolerant mentality of adult-youth relations in the States is a large part of the problem.

    Banning violent video games goes further in the wrong direction. Now we make criminals out of those youngsters who want such games. Excellent.

    • One long twin study showed approximately 50% coming from genes, 45% from unknown sources but presumably peer influence, and 5% from parents.

      So, tell me about this study. Specifically, how was this determined? By how alike the children are to the parents? If the parents are not doing any parenting (as the parents of these kids obviously weren't--the kids were obviously mentally disturbed, but weren't kept away from rifles), sure their influence is very low.

      Maybe parents should take a more active role

    • parents are amazingly irrelevant to their children's character. One long twin study showed approximately 50% coming from genes, 45% from unknown sources but presumably peer influence, and 5% from parents.

      Perhaps because parents are spending less than 5% of time with their kids nowadays? Now, shut up children, ER is on TV now.

  • Wrong headline (Score:4, Informative)

    by HornyBastard77 ( 667965 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:55AM (#6993456)
    Its the family of the victims doing the suing here, not the family of the teens. From the article:

    The $100m legal action involves Joshua Buckner, 14, and his stepbrother William, 16, from Newport, Tennessee, who shot dead Aaron Hamel, 45, and seriously injured Kimberly Bede, 19, on 25 June..

    ...Miss Bede and the family of Aaron Hamel plan to sue Take-Two Interactive Software, which publishes Grand Theft Auto, for liability in a wrongful death lawsuit.

    So this is the same old story.

    I guess the NRA can now add video games to their ever expanding list of things that kill people (guns and god excluded).

  • by guacamolefoo ( 577448 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:57AM (#6993467) Homepage Journal
    "We came home and found our son lying dead on his bed from a gunshot wound. He had his headphones on and there was an Ozzy record on the turntable[1]. So we called our lawyer."

    GF.

    [1] An archaic device used to create an analog sound stream from an arm with a small device that amplified the sound made by a needle rubbing a vinyl platter etched with a spiral groove starting on the outside and slowly going toward the center. The vinyl platters were called "records" and were interchangeable. The "record player" rotated the disk in a circular motion while the arm tracked the groove as it moved from the outside to the inside of the "record"[2].

    [2] In the southern hemisphere, the "record" spun in the opposite direction.
  • I can see it now... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by brsmith4 ( 567390 ) <.brsmith4. .at. .gmail.com.> on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:57AM (#6993473)
    The counter-suit: Sony-RockStar-TakeTwo vs. parents of two dumb ass kids. I mean seriously, I would be suing the parents of the kids who did this because they neglected to instill any sort of common sense or "morallity" in their children. Their lawsuit is baseless. To blame it on a company that made a video game and sue them for it is simply another case of profiteering after a tragic incident as well as redirecting the true blame. These kids parents ought to be shot themselves for obviously neglecting their kids (they claimed they were "bored") and not keeping firearms out of their little hands. The fact that they are looking to cash in on this only tells me that they are really shitty people to begin with. I hope, that if they do sue and do win by some terrible glitch in the legal system, that they give all of the settlement to the families of the victims. Otherwise, I hope they die.

    There is nothing I hate more than the parents of the children that pull this shit off. I believe it all lies with them.
  • by chia_monkey ( 593501 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:58AM (#6993480) Journal
    I usually rant on about how rediculous I find these lawsuits and get pissed about how people just can't seem to take accountability for their own actions. "Oh, Billy just shot you? It doesn't matter that I didn't train him proper firearm useage, had one readily available to him, and didn't teach him it's wrong. I'm suing a game company."

    However...the part that REALLY scares me is the fact they're suing Sony because that was the console it was on. So when people start suing movie directors and studios for violent movies, does this mean they'll also be able to sue AMC theaters? Unfugginbelievable...
  • Two questions (Score:4, Insightful)

    by brucmack ( 572780 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @08:59AM (#6993488)
    OK, two things:

    1) Why were a 14 year old and a 16 year old allowed access to the rifle?
    2) Why were a 14 year old and a 16 year old allowed access to a game rated Mature?

    Perhaps the parents should try to answer these questions before taking a stupid case to court.
  • by SpacePunk ( 17960 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:06AM (#6993544) Homepage
    These 'kids' are 14 and 16 years old. If they can't tell the difference between fantasy and reality by now, the fact that they killed one person and injured another is beside the point. They should be locked up forever since they will always be a threat to those around them.
  • by UnknowingFool ( 672806 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:21AM (#6993663)
    This isn't the first time that Sony has been sued because of a game. A mother sued them last year her son became depressed and commited suicide. [jsonline.com] Her lawsuit pointed the finger at Sony because they made the game Everquest Online. Apparently he was spending upto 12 hours a day playing the game. Spending so much time in an alternate reality warped his mind according to the lawsuit. Sony should have had a warning label that the game was addictive.

    Reading articles about the GTA lawsuit and the Everquest, it outrages me on how little responsibility the parents take for the actions of their children and how little they hold their children accountible for their own actions. The Everquest mom let her son play the game and he was 21 years old. The GTA parents let their kids play a game that was rated for adults.

    Many people like to point the finger at other things besides themselves. Outside forces caused them to do it. The sad fact of reality is that we live in the outside world. There are things beyond our control that may try to influence (drugs, crime, moral decay). We can control ourselves and not be influenced by them.

    Many people will say that these games are beyond anything previously experienced. They point to all sorts of studies on how games influence violence. Evil is as old as time itself. There is a very old book. It has tales of patricide, matricide, murder, rape, incest, polygamy, adultery--every ill we know. It's called the Bible. How come none of these parents ever sued the church because it is a bad influence? Because if the silliness of it would get the lawsuit tossed out of court in a heartbeat.

  • by saddino ( 183491 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:24AM (#6993703)
    Let me guess, this will end up like every other "blame the media" lawsuit whether it is against a rock band, a movie or in keeping with the times, a video game: thrown own of court by an eye-rolling judge or found laughable by an eye-rolling jury.

    Parents: give it up, this tactic has never worked because it is damn near impossible to show causality for mass media that is digested by millions.

    Yes, someone has to blame for your kid killing himself/someone else...but expand your definition of someone to include "that's life" and you'll might feel better about things. Millions of kids (many of which listen to, watch or play the thing you are blaming) do not end up this way. The few kids that do fall into a statistical expectation...either due to problems with their upbringing, their peers, their parents or their gray matter. Welcome to the world we live in.
  • by iapetus ( 24050 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:29AM (#6993763) Homepage

    The article reads:

    Sony will also be named in the lawsuit because GTA was exclusive to their console.

    This should instead read:

    Sony will also be named in the lawsuit because they have a lot of money and the lawyers would like some of it.

    Hope this helps.

  • by brightloudnoise ( 102680 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @09:54AM (#6994011) Homepage
    Tennessee has no Child Access Prevention (CAP) Law and has no Trigger Lock Law.

    So first off the parents of these kids basically are under no liability for the apparent availability and possibly unsafe storage of their weapons. Yet they have the gall to blame this tragedy on a game clearly marked for adults, which they most likely purchased for their kids.

    Don't even get me started on their lack of responsibility as parents to at least be aware of what their child is watching on television or playing on a game console.

    Parenting is more than breeding and feeding.
  • Naming Sony... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dbretton ( 242493 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:12AM (#6994188) Homepage
    "... Sony will also be named in the lawsuit because GTA was exclusive to their console."

    GTA 3 is also available on the PC. Why not sue Microsoft, creators of Windows and DirectX, for allowing the game to be played on the OS? While they're at it, sue Intel, NVidia, Corsair, Asus, Hitachi (cause there's got to be a Hitachi chip in that computer somewhere), Kensington, SonicView, Plextor and Lian-li?

    After all, those bastards should have to pay for what they did. They need to be more responsible? Don't these companies know they are raising these children??

    I know that if I ever have kids and get a divorce, I'm gonna sue Microsoft and Toyota for alimony!
  • by D'Arque Bishop ( 84624 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:16AM (#6994233) Homepage
    A few years ago, the mother of a child who was killed by one of his friends sued Midway, saying the friend was inspired by Mortal Kombat. She lost. An article I found about it said...

    U.S. District Judge Janet Bond Arterton found that the lawsuit brought by the victim's mother failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. Thirteen-year-old Noah Wilson died in November 1997 when his friend, identified in court papers as Yancy S., stabbed him in the chest with a kitchen knife. Noah's mother, Andrea Wilson, sued Midway Games Inc., claiming that Yancy S. was addicted to "Mortal Kombat" video games and that he was so obsessed with the game that he actually believed he was the character "Cyrax." Wilson argued that Yancy S. was mimicking Cyrax's combat moves at the time he stabbed her son.

    But Judge Arterton held that the video game is protected by the First Amendment. While Wilson had argued that "Mortal Kombat" differed from books and motion pictures by virtue of its "interactivity," Judge Arterton said the plaintiff failed to offer a persuasive reason for distinguishing the technological advances that led to the game's creation from developments at the turn of the 20th century that ushered in the motion picture.


    You can read the entire article here [lordbissell.com]. Part of me is seriously hoping that the defense can use this in the trial, but then IANAL, so I don't know for certain either way. :)

    Just my $.02...
  • by leereyno ( 32197 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:27AM (#6994329) Homepage Journal
    "There has been a wealth of research to show that children's brains process these video games in a different way from adults'. They cannot differentiate between fantasy and reality, so they play these games and then think if they do the same thing in reality, it's OK, there will be no consequences."

    The problem with the above statement, made by Jack Thompson, attorney for the families, is that we're not talking about children here. At 14 and 16, the perpetrators of this crime are not children. Now I know that some people try to pretend that teenagers are children but they're really being dishonest and even deceitful when they do. Teenagers are not yet adults, but neither are they children. They are minors, but all that describes is their legal status, not their degree of maturity. Neither an 18 year old nor a 40 year old are minors, yet no one would try to claim that made them equally mature. The two young men in question are not children, they are adolescents, a stage in human development that is not usually given its due. For this lawywer to claim that someone that age is unable to discern reality from fantasy or understand the consequences of his or her actions shows a careless disregard for the truth or perhaps even an inability on the part of this lawyer to discern reality himself.

    The left wing in this country have suceeded in creating an environment where no one is held accountable for the consequences of their decisions. The lamest of excuses, like "I saw it in a video game," or "I ate too many twinkies" are sucessfully used to deflect blame onto third parties.

    Responsibility for this crime begins and ends with the two young men who perpetrated it. As far as the things that might have influenced them to commit the crime, why aren't their parents pointed out? If a video game can influence someone to do something so horrible, what does that say about how their parents have raised them?

    The sad sick truth of this story is that Sony is being sued not because it is responsible for this in any way, but because it has deep pockets and is likely to settle out of court because it will cost them MORE money to fight it.

    The only people who win in a case like this are lawywers, and they do so at the expense of society itself. Jack Thompson should be disbarred for filing a frivilous lawsuit.

    Lee
  • by Damn_Canuck ( 702128 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:43AM (#6994463) Journal
    This issue continues to come back up, time and time again. Whenever there is a killing or attack by someone under the age of 18, ANYWHERE, games, television, and other items which identify the current culture are being put to blame.

    If it were necessarily true that kids follow games, then why aren't MORE kids out there killing and maiming? The mentality is set to a small group. If there was a mass hysteria, sure, maybe then there would be something. But for God's sake, people, it's a video game! I played them on the Commodore 64, Apple 2, Atari 2600, Intellivision, and the original Nintendo when I was a kid!

    Did they have an effect on me? Well, as a kid, I never knocked over a turtle and kicked it away a la Mario Brothers! I never stole a car and took it for a spin around the city like many racing games! Hell, I never went out and had sex at age 12 because of all those crappy sex games the C-64 had available for it, either.

    So the question remains: why are kids being blamed, and in this case saying, that they learned the behavior from TV and video games? Simple answer: their parents and the media. Parents today are worried about their kids, and they have every right to be. But what do they do? (And I have noticed this with friends and family who have children of various ages.) When their kid is in trouble, they ask them where they learned it. "Was it on TV? Was it in those video games they play?" The parents are giving the kids the scapegoat the kids want and need, and the companies that make the games are the ones getting in crap. The media blows all of this out of proportion, with CNN reporting hours-upon-hours of how the games are corrupting the youth.

    Grow up, people! Yes, some people may be influenced by games, but those people need some form of attention and intervention; it will not go away by removing one video game. Take some responsibility for your own actions, and that includes random blaming of games and television for acts which are probably rooted deeper into the kid's psyche (although I am not a psychologist).
  • RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Chibi ( 232518 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @10:52AM (#6994541) Journal
    Miss Bede and the family of Aaron Hamel plan to sue Take-Two Interactive Software, which publishes Grand Theft Auto, for liability in a wrongful death lawsuit. Take-Two owns Rockstar Games, which is based in Edinburgh and designed the first version of the game in 1997. Sony will also be named in the lawsuit, because Grand Theft Auto was made exclusively for its Play- Station consoles. Sony declined to comment on the case.


    The lawsuit is being filed by one victim and the family of the other victim. The morons doing the shooting aren't involved in this aspect of it (unless they are asked to testify that the video game made them do it, which we all know is just stupid).

    My favorite quote from the article:

    In a letter to victims and their families, Joshua said: "I did not mean to hurt anyone. I hate that it happened. This will stick with me for the rest of my life."


    It's nice to see that this guy is a complete moron, and this isn't just an isolated incident. What does he expect when he fires a rifle at people? They'll just respawn or something? Sad...

  • Chewbaka rules! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Urd ( 198177 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @11:08AM (#6994684)
    Your honor, I would like to claim damages from Sony for taking away my parenthood and teaching my kids to kill. I was too busy watching TV to teach my kids any values so I would also like to sue Fox.
  • A Democrat Problem (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @11:38AM (#6995037)
    Just FYI:

    The reason this legal crap happens is because the Democrats cover for these sleazy lawyers at every turn. The lawyers reward them with huge campaign contributions.

    The Republicans are trying to fix this lawsuit nonsense. Of course, that makes them a "tool of big business" for taking Sony's side in fights like this. That's right. If you're on Sony's side in this lawsuit, you're a tool of big business.

    This lawsuit problem would be fixed if the Democrats would get out of the way.

    Please consider this before you automatically support the Democrats next time. Some of us would really like these types of lawsuits to stop.

    ---

    This was originally posted here [slashdot.org] but it got modded down even though it's factually correct.

  • God Forbid.. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by delus10n0 ( 524126 ) on Thursday September 18, 2003 @12:41PM (#6995680)
    God forbid we actually blame the children who commited the crime. It was poor Johnny's upbringing and his environment! It drove him to KILL!

    Waah waaah wwaaaaaaah. I hope the judge laughs at this and tosses it out.
  • by automandc ( 196618 ) * on Thursday September 18, 2003 @01:35PM (#6996190)
    OK, I'm bored, since my office is dead due to the little wind storm going on, so I'll take a long walk of this short intellectual pier for fun...

    Let me start by saying: (1) Yes, I am a lawyer; (2) yes I think these lawsuits are silly; (3) I don't believe the parents have a very good chance of winning.

    Whenever this issue comes up, there is the inevitable deluge of virulent "where were the parents!" and "why weren't you teaching your kids values" type posts/comments/rants. Despite the mind numbing banality of most of these, people seem to continue to harp on about it over and over.

    What I find particularly interesting is the attempt to ascribe these types of lawsuits to "liberals" and "the left", and the rabid conservative mantra that liberals have "destroyed personal responsibility." (Like fiscal responsibility? largest deficit in history)

    I am wary of these "where were the parents" type simplifications. It seems to me that these are all based on a mythical image of the American Family that is taken straight from 1950's television, and has little (or no) bearing on today's society. Where were the parents? Working two jobs that require 60+ hours a week so they can continue to enjoy the "middle class" life in some suburban development near a semi-decent school. By the time Mom & Dad have come home at 6:00 or 7:00 pm and made dinner, they are probably way too strung out from a 14 hour day to be providing much useful moral guidance.

    Don't get me wrong, I support working Mom's and Dads. My family is a two-job deal, but we are lucky in that, because I have a high-priced legal education, we can afford full time child care for our tots. Most parents in the U.S. can't do that.

    Meanwhile the kids are sitting around at home from 3pm when schools let out, thanks to shorter school days brought about by reduced budgets. There aren't too many organized, safe after school programs anymore (especially for kids who aren't athletic, or aren't into sports, which I'd be a large number of /.'ers can relate to).

    Sure, 99% of the people smart enough to read this site were smart enough to separate fact from fancy at a pretty young age. But ask yourself: didn't you do anything stupid at the age of 14 (or 24) that you now look back on and go "whoa...I was an idiot..." The thing maturity brings is an ability to think through the potential consequences of your actions. That's what "learning from experience" is all about. Now, none of us (hopefully) ever decided to shoot at trucks on the highway. But I'll bet a few people here tossed things off an overpass...or put things on the train tracks...or stole a stop sign (guilty)...or any of a hundred things that could have caused serious injury. The kids involved in the GTA case are probably particularly sub-par in the brains department, but they didn't set out to hurt people, they just didn't consider that if you shoot at the side of a truck (a supposedly destructive but not dangerous act) it might have dire consequences if you MISS. (After all, how many of us miss all that often using the sniper rifle in GTA?) So, bad decision on their part.

    People are incensed that TakeTwo and Sony are sued. It is descried as evidence of the out of control courts. However, what conservatives never seem to point out is that almost all of these suits are dismissed early on (and if you dig into the ones that aren't, like the infamous McDonald's coffee case, you find the facts aren't as cut-and-dried as you think). In other words, the courts aren't out of control; they are doing exactly what they are designed to do: adjudicate the rights of parties who feel they have been wronged.

    One last (semi-random) point. Someone raised a first amendment issue below. That isn't really relevant here. Whether TakeTwo has a right to publish GTAIII is different from whether they can be held responsible for consequences that naturally flow from their decision to do so. (I'm not saying that shooting at trucks is a natur

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Working...