Kids Kill, Victim Sues Game Maker 1035
qbproger writes "Sadly, two kids decided to go outside and start shooting cars. They were mimicing a video game they had been playing, Grand Theft Auto. I think it's about time parents started paying attention to the rating on video games." The family of one of the victims has decided to file suit against Take Two Interactive, presumably deciding that blame should be assigned to whoever has the deepest pockets instead of to those who actually did something wrong.
Legal precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well obviously (Score:3, Insightful)
other side of the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
On the other side of the coin, the victim might not be concerned about deep pockets. Instead, the victim is most likely in deep pain and may be under the impression the stopping the game company from making such games might also stop this pain from happening again.
Just on a personal note, I am not opposed to violent video games; I play them. I believe teenagers are more impressionable than adults, and we should be careful about their level of violence ingested.
of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
Another fine example (Score:5, Insightful)
The game did it.
What happened?
Blame? (Score:2, Insightful)
What happened (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: and who bought the game for the kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
> who? who?
I'd be more concerned with where they got the guns.
What about the parents? (Score:1, Insightful)
They should be going to jail too.
One mo' time... (Score:5, Insightful)
Any kids that went out and did stuff like that had problems before they ever got ahold of GTA.
interesting idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
1: being irresonsible and leaving unlocked weapons around.
2: not teaching the kids gun safety
3: not knowing what the kids were up to
You never know, it might actually work! The next step would be, imagine this, that parents would actually be responsible for their childs actions!!
unbelievable (Score:3, Insightful)
"The industry needs to cough up money so victims and their families can be compensated for their pain," Thompson said. "The shareholders need to know what their games are doing to kids and their families. They need to stop pushing adult rated products to kids. These products are deadly."
Amazing that some lawyer believes this...oh wait, no its not. If they win they'll make history for themselves as well as get a really good chunk of change.
Why can't I get on jury selection for stuff like this so when they ask me a question I can tell them what morons they are???
Kids are seeing that they can claim video games made them do it these days and they don't get labeled as murderers or as crazy. Its just another ploy to not accept responsibility.
Granted these kids admitted responsibility but they also blamed GTA. If they didn't they probably would have been in more trouble. Lesson for the kiddies out there. If you are going to commit a violent crime make sure you have a good scapegoat. These days movies and video games seem to work pretty well.
From the article (Score:5, Insightful)
How is this even a question? Yes.
Please allow me to quote Gabe from Penny Arcade:
"Like some kind of pornographic archeologist your 10 year old boy is probably rummaging through a stack of poorly hidden playboys from the 1970's at his best friends house right now. You cannot watch your kids all the time and you cannot ensure they will never see a boob or a gun before they are ready. What you can do is make sure that what they see and do in your house is appropriate and rely on some good old fashioned parenting skills to make sure that a quick glimpse of some blood in a videogame doesn't send them into a violent rage that ends with a school full of dead kids."
And nothing will come of the suit... (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know why some people don't realize that there's got to be something seriously wrong in a kid's head when he wants to go out and imitate killing scenes from video games. And that blame does not transfer to the video game maker. Just as the blame does not transfer to the maker of the gun the kid fired. If you consider how many people play/have played GTA, and then consider how many people commit violent acts "because of" GTA, you're looking at such a miniscule percentile that any accusation toward the game makers for "casuing" the violent acts to occur becomes moot.
Re:other side of the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not Take2's fault that Darwin had a point.
Parents, Don't pay attention to Game Ratings. (Score:4, Insightful)
Psychotics aren't born in a day.
Re:of course... (Score:3, Insightful)
It would have been okay for these little fuckers to be packing heat if they were weened on Bubble Bobble instead?!
Re:other side of the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh really?
Ahh, I see. you mean FINANCIAL pain, as in "God damn, my neighbor got a bigger car then me and my wife's life insurance still won't get me a new Dodge! Hey, let's sue the makers of the game that the people who killed her played!". By Eris, all this 'financial compensation for emotional pain 'crap is making me so sick, especially in a case like this. Maybe the game creators weren't the people who are responsible, maybe the parents of the kids are, who quite obviously FAILED to properly raise their kids.
It's just another lawsuit with the purpose of getting rich quick over someone's death. Ignore it. The only ones who will profit from this one are the lawyers.
Re:other side of the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, and whose responsibility should that be? Maybe... um... could it be... THE PARENTS' JOB? They bring the little brats^Wdarling angels into the world, yet we can't expect them to actually know what the kids are doing? Something is seriously wrong with this picture.
I Didn't Shoot Anyone (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm reminded of a line out of a Batman comic that I have in which a paramedic tells Batman not to feel bad after a maniac shoots several people because he (Batman) couldn't have known. Batman's response is something to the effect of:
"I don't. I didn't shoot anyone."
I think that applies here fairly well. Noone at Take Two shot anyone (at least not in relation to this case), and it wasn't their job to watch and raise every fucking 90 IQ kid out there who plays their game when the parents don't screen their kids' purchases. A more apt lawsuit might be filed against the parents for criminal negligence and the fact that they let their mentally ill, retarded children anywhere near guns...
Actually, my apologies to all the mentally retarded people out there, I shouldn't have grouped you with people as ridiculously stupid as those kids...
Re:other side of the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
Show me ONE case where parents have sued to stop publication, rather than suing for heaps and heaps of cash. Show me just ONE and I'll say you've got a valid point.
Who are we blaming? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it is time to have exams for parenting eligibility. Seriously. There was a recent case that also blamed games for some shootout.
Never do the articles even MENTION how the f**k those kids got the guns! A 14 year old child with an access to loaded shotgun is clearly a problem but not a one caused by video games.
What are the parents going to blame if the violent games are banned? Oh, right, movies [go.com].
Re:What happened (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legal precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Then they'd be even more inclined not to take cases they don't think they can win. And suddenly making sure defendants get a fair trial doesn't seem so important any more. After all, nobody would want to get involved in a criminal case unless the defendant has a rock-solid alibi.
Re:of course... (Score:5, Insightful)
No it isn't, but the parents cant be financially milked, unlike the gaming industry. Think in terms of money. The people who filed the suit couldn't give a rats ass who is right and who is wrong, as long as they can earn money from it. If someone dies, no amount of money can bring them back, yet a certain amount of money can make them 'forget' it happened. I call that both disgusting and immoral because they use someone's death for financial gains.
This Suit Is Assinine (Score:2, Insightful)
Lawsuits like this are assinine and done out of anger. You should be suing the parents of the boys, not Take2Interactive. Obviously these boys were not mature enough to handle playing a game like this. Both boys weren't even 17, so where was the parential supervision? Suing Take2Interactive takes some of the blame off of the boys and their parents.
Video Games do not kill people. People kill people. What you see and play on GTA is just as bad as what you can see on cable TV, or you local news station every night.
The problem here, as I stated earlier is the maturity level of these boys, and their parents not supervising them. When I was 12 years old, I could have told you that this stuff was not safe to do, nor did I even remotely take any video game seriously. You can not blame makers of a game for something they clearly did not do. Well, you can, but you just look like a fool when doing so.
Eminem said it best... (Score:5, Insightful)
Think about playing GTA. What happens the first time you try to play the game?
Chances are you end up with the boys in blue on your butt and you're being beaten to a bloody pulp. Nothing misleading there.
They should select a group of jurors with no experience playing the GTA games and have them each try playing the game -- the trial will last about 90 minutes before being thrown out.
Re:Legal precedent? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Some figures... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's next? Pool Deaths? Ocean Deaths? Knife Deaths? Food Deaths?
Control the language, and you control the thoughts. Don't buy into their newspeak.
On a related note... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:other side of the coin (Score:3, Insightful)
-
blame canada! blame canada!
"I didn't want to hurt anyone" (Score:2, Insightful)
Cannot Sue A Gaming Company (Score:2, Insightful)
Parents really need to start taking responsibility for their childerns actions. I'm a parent of two little girls. You don't see me trying to sue the company who made my sofa because my child fell of off it do you? It's a sad state of affairs when parents would rather sue some external company then look in apon themselves and their methods (or lack there of) of parenting.
Many questions surface in this too. Why did they have access to guns? Why were they playing this game in the first place? Who bought the gun/game? I have no guns in my house and I monitor what my childern watch and play. This is not a very difficult task and on top of it all it gives me time to spend with my childern. I watch tv with them, help them to play games (ok they are young but I don't use the TV as a baby sitter).
Really people, this whole "Let's sue so we can continue to let the gov/state gov raise our kids for us!" is getting old and dangerous. Not only that, it doenst work. Apparently these parents dont see that. I can put a thousand warning labels on things, sue a ton of movie and gaming companies, and it won't do a thing. All it will do is force a company to pay out money or put a label on something they these type of parents probably won't pay attention to any way. Instead of suing they need to stop what ever it is in their busy lives, reevaluate their lives and their childerns, and start being parents. Take the time that you would have used to sue a company and instead spend it with your kids. Now, I do understand that one of the victims is pressing suit here but it still doesnt change the fact that my above statements hold true. I think the victims should spend their time trying to work community instead of suing an entertainment company.
why so specific? (Score:4, Insightful)
How about just not to point guns at people? If the kids are so dense you have to tell them not to shoot at cars then they're probably too dense to know they shouldn't shoot at trucks or semies or mini-vans or SUVs, etc either without you specifically telling them each type of vehicle.
They should just throw the kids in jail for a very long time and be done with it.
They're obviously incapable of functioning in society. And the parents are obviously incapable of raising the kids otherwise.
And the parents who are suing the video game makers would be better off spending their time getting the court systems to stop feeling sorry for kids they'd like us all to believe "made a mistake."
A mistake is breaking a lamp. It is not a "mistake" to take innocent lives in such a malicious manner. They've crossed the sympathy line about 3 miles ago with this one.
The parents should simply be content with those kids locked away indefinitly.
Ben
Kids' parents already show irresponsible (Score:3, Insightful)
Seems pretty obvious where the blame falls to me. Parents that are not willing to help their children in school, or pay even the slightest amount of attention to their other activites invite this kind of shit.
Just to add to the lack of attention, the guns were gone for almost a week:
(from KnoxNews [knoxnews.com])
Kids not doing shit in school, playing M rated video games (at home, in the parents house), and guns missing for a week... yeah, blame TakeTwo.
Re:I have sympathy with the parents, but... (Score:2, Insightful)
Guns are used for recreation, just like video games. I see people here talking about personal responsibility, and how stupid it is to blame an inanimate thing for the actions of someone, and yet many of those people are sending their little "ban guns" agenda in the same breath.
Don't you all see the hypocrisy?
Re:of course... (Score:1, Insightful)
Why don't you watch Bowling for Columbine [imdb.com]? I used to be ambivalent about the issue, but this documentary definitely opened my eyes.
Re:Exactly (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: and who bought the game for the kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
The gun owner has a responsibility to keep them locked up. Right?
wbs.
I'm a parent. (Score:5, Insightful)
We do NOT let him play any games with guns. He plays racing games, goofy Mario type games and the like. We also teach him that people using guns on others is a very bad thing. We are trying to instill in him that guns are weapons for the sole purpose of harming and killing other things.
We're trying to teach him to be nice. To try to be a good person. To know right from wrong. What happened to being a nice person? Why is everyone so cynical now adays?
Are we perfect parents? No. Will what we're trying to teach him stick? I don't know...but we're trying, we really really are. It's hard to do with the media overblowing violence and crime most of the time.
When something like this happens, everyone points fingers and blames everyone else. But I feel there is no one thing to blame. There are many different factors at work here. Bad parents? Violent Videogames? Violent media and music? War starting presidents? Evil dictators? Religion? Environment? Bullies? School?
There are no answers, only choices.
Re: and who bought the game for the kids? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: and who bought the game for the kids? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Legal precedent? (Score:4, Insightful)
The things these storys dont tell you...
How many hours a week did they spend with there child ( today, it seems children are lucky if there parents spend 1 hour a day with them )
Did the parents know the other kid? Maybe one of the kids where known to cause problems...
Why didnt one of these kids stop and say "You know this is a bad thing"
They want you to believe to people just happened to have the guidence there parents have given them all there lives wiped out by a video game.. Not just one kid but 2...
Have they ever been talked to about the dangers of guns?
Have they ever been told cartoons,video games and such are not real.. I know it sounds cheesy to say but damn my dad asked me once if I understood the diffrence between real life and TV.. Come on parents get with it.
I say they never had proper guidence to begin with, That we spent more time as a family things would not be as bad as they are now.
Guns in USA are to blame... (Score:2, Insightful)
Check this site for Gun data [guncontrol.ca].
The link between accessibility to firearms and death rates has been suggested in a number of studies. One study which examined the link between gun ownership rates and firearm deaths within Canadian provinces, the United States, England/Wales and Australia concluded that 92% of the variance in death rates was explained by access to firearms in those areas.
Canada is the closest neigbourgh and why is the ratio so low? They ban all handguns and you need to register all rifles.
I'd be more worried about Gun control than game ratings. You can buy a gun at walmart and yet you can't buy CD's with parental advisory stickers??!? What's going on in this country?
Yes, mom or dad bought the game, but what the hell were those kids doing with an unlocked gun? Those parents are as guilty and should be jailed by now.
Blech (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I hate the entire GTA series. I think the glorification of violence is a bad idea, and that the game makers show a lack of social conscience. But I respect their right to make the games. Further, I believe that if we were to hold game makers responsible for the effects of their games on the people who buy them, it would have a profund chilling effect on free speech. That is unacceptable.
You know it and I know it: these kids were severely disturbed long before they ever got their hands on GTA. Hundreds of millions of people play video games, why aren't at least a few million of us out there emulating them? Because the vast, vast majority of us have too firm a grip on reality. We also share an ability to empathize with others and accept that their feelings are important. These kids, somewhere along the line, lost that ability.
Even if we accept that there is a small subset of humanity who--for whatever psycho/neuro/sociological reason--can be affected by video games in this way, that is not sufficient reason to stop creating the games. It doesn't make sense any more than it makes sense to stop making peanut butter just because a few of us are violently allergic to peanuts. The focus should be on finding these broken people and trying to fix them, because making the world safe for them is impossible.
Re:What happened (Score:3, Insightful)
What happened to this country?? Has the average intelligence dropped that fucking much??
Short answer: yes. But there's more to it than that.
When the fuck did I get sucked into the Twilight Zone? And whatever happened to personal responsibility??
It isn't just the drop in American IQ that's at work here; indeed, that's only a minor factor. The group most responsible for bringing this stupidity to our once-great nation is the American Trial Lawyers Association.
IANAL, but as I understand it the source of the problem is the "joint and several liability" clause in current tort law, which makes anyone who can be shown to be even one percent responsible for a loss liable for the entire amount of the loss. With laws like this, it's only inevitable that lawyers, being the carnivorous predators that they are (actually, they're more like parasites but I'm inclined to be nice to them today and just call them vicious carnivores), are going to go after the deepest pockets.
Congress actually passed tort reform legislation in the 1990's that would have corrected these abuses, but Bill Clinton vetoed it. It seems that the American Trial Lawyers Association was either the biggest or the second-biggest fundraiser for the Democratic Party...
And THAT is what happened to personal responsibility. The Democrites are no better than the Repugnicans when it comes to individual liberty and personal responsibility issues. I would strongly suggest that Slashdot readers carefully consider supporting the third-party candidate of their choice in future elections.
Re:other side of the coin (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:5, Insightful)
I have always found video games to be a escape... Shooing a person on the screen is sort of a release for me, Because I fully understand the diffrence between real life and the screen.
Trying to hide them from it just will not work...
Theres a saying "The Pastors daughter is always the worst".
The more you hold a item away from a dog, the more they want to play with it..
Instead let them play with it but teach them how to play right.
Re:One mo' time... (Score:2, Insightful)
I really do not see how rockstar could be at fault in ANY WAY whatsoever. If i write some violent game or story or something, and somehow some kid gets it, reads/plays it and gets fucked up in the head and goes and kills ppl am i responsible? Even thou i didn't sell/give him the material? Even thou i said that it wasn't suitable for people under 19?
Its the parents fault, pure and simple. Rockstar is the furthest from fault.
Re:the kids already "won" (Score:1, Insightful)
In most countries this would be near impossible (Score:4, Insightful)
"If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns" - or what is that saying? Well, that is fine by me. Then you can bust anybody running around with a gun and get the problem out of the way. Seriously, how many lifes have the right to bear arms saved? How many has it cost? This system is what keeps deaths down in oh so many countries.
In my country, you are allowed to have guns. You have to pass some rigorous tests for it, and get a real license - just like to you have to pass tests to drive a car. To get any gun not suitable for hunting, you have to be a member of a shooting club, and you have to have been a member for quite some time. Also, nowadays, this permit is reevaluated every few years.
Responsible, test passing people are way more likely to keep their guns safely, and disassembled like they should do. You almost never hear about any incidents over here. Almost, of course, because nothing is idiot proof. But almost never. Wouldn't that be nice?
I'm gonna get soooo jumped for this, I guess, but I honestly, seriously do not get it. What the hell do you need those guns for? And if you really like to fire a weapon, how come a shooting club isn't good enough? And if you are a serious, law abiding, responsible gun user, how the hell can stricter rules on who gets to own a gun be a bad thing? You should applaud it, and if you are all of the above, you should pass any test easily.
Guns don't kill people, people kill people. True. But why give them such an easy way to do it?
Why is this stupid piece of lethal metal so fucking important to you people?
Re:Exactly (Score:2, Insightful)
That's exactly the right take on this, IMHO. Shortly after the loss of a loved one, it's going to be difficult for anyone to be completely rational and objective. How about cutting them a little slack and dropping the cynicism for once?
In that case, they shouldn't be fucking around with lawyers and courts until they are thinking rationally and objectively. The courts should not be used to satisfy the knee-jerk responses of the bereaved.
Legal BS (Score:5, Insightful)
If I were one of his victims, I would sue his parents for leaving an unsecured gun around a mentally disabled child.
Re:other side of the coin (Score:2, Insightful)
They call something supremely damaging to the front, then "settle" for cash, just like every other case. This isn't the ultimate point of the affair, it's a tactic to try and force a wealthy settlement just like every other similar case, and you knew that before you replied.
American Experiment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:other side of the coin (Score:1, Insightful)
Hell, I'm more afraid of adults who are more calculated in their sociopathic desires. Lets take some scenarios:
#1: Bored teenagers get disruptive. They perform a single violent act, generally one not-too-thought out. (Even Columbine falls into this category, as they couldn't even blow up the school properly)
#2: Crazy former-army nuts decide society sucks. They withdraw from society, survive on their own and actually make fucking plans for their destruction. From here, we get the Unabomber and Timmy McVeigh.
#2 scares me more, but #1 is apparently the bigger problem because the media says so and because they keep trying to pass laws about violence and video games.
Sigh.
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry, but you're barking up the wrong tree here. I'm not a believer in God and religion. If my son wishes to find these things for himself when he's older, thats fine. But you don't need God to tell someone that shooting another human being is wrong. The model of God and religion is a model of hate and death. More people have died in the history of this planet due to religion than any other thing. The crusades? The inquisition....over 5 million people, mostly women, were hung or burned during that time due to them being "witches". The holocaust?
I forgot where I heard this line, but wherever it's from it makes sense:There is just enough religion in the world to make men hate eatch other, but not enough to make them love.
But this is offtopic.
Re:What happened (Score:2, Insightful)
In an article which features so many complaints about failure to take personal responsibility, I think it's worth pointing out that responsible citizens do not avoid jury duty.
If we had more smart people stepping up to the plate and serving on juries, we'd help make sure that the bad guys receive appropriate punishments, and that the frivolous lawsuits fail.
If you brag that you're "smart enough" to get out of jury duty, then don't complain about stupid court decisions, because you're part of the problem!
Re:Legal precedent? (Score:3, Insightful)
You have no clue what you are talking about. The lawyer invests signifigant time into filing and preparing for a lawsuit. If the lawyer didn't honestly think that the client had a valid claim, that time could be spent working for a client that did. And the lawyer IS held accountable. It's called "Rule 11" [epistolary.org] and it's there to sanction lawyers that file frivilous law suits.
They should not be necessary at all, but the law is not the law! Precedent is the law
The fact that you challenge this shows you know nothing about how the law works. The law is made up of statutes AND precedent. Precedent is used to guide the law so the similar cases are not decided differently. The way it works now: X gets hit by a car driven by Y. Y is found guilty of, say, manslughter for whatever reason. Four years later K gets hit by a car driven by L with a very similar fact pattern. The courts can look at the previous case and say "Yes the original court made the right decision and we apply it to this one". If they didn't, everytime this accident happened, the court would have to go through a lengthy process of looking at the statute, making assumptions because the statutes never cover every case, and in the end, two similar cases could be decided completely differently becuase the judges were different. Removing precedent would make deterrment impossible because you'd never be able to predict what the court will decide e.g. "If I kill this person, what will happen?" as opposed to "If I kill this person, I'll probably go to prison for life". On top of that, precedent helps determine how the law should work when dealing with facts that were never envisioned at the time the statute was created. Example: A sign says "no vehicles in the park". A person gets fined for riding a segway in the park. Should they be fined? Segways weren't around when the statute was made. Well, what has the court decided in the past? Cars were not allowed in one case but bikes were in another. Motorized scooters were in a third. Therefore, the segway is ok and the person shouldn't have been fined. Precedent is what makes the courts semi-predictable. Not as predictable as people bashing lawyers on slashdot, but semi-predictable.
I'm not saying lawyers are angels, and that more of these cases shouldn't be turned away, but don't challenge something you obviously don't understand.
psxndc
Re:Legal precedent? (Score:3, Insightful)
OK, to be fair, I was referring to here in the US. I won't contend the point with you in matters of the UK.
So, in other words, a human life to you is worth less than your property?
When they're in my house, how do I know they're not going to kill me and rape my wife? Should I politely ask them? In an abstract sense, no, of course human life is more important. But when it's 2 AM and dark and some stranger is in my house, possibly armed, and I don't know what they are going to do, I honestly would shoot first and ask questions later. Sorry. It's survival to me. I understand and respect that you may feel different.
psxndc
Re:other side of the coin (Score:5, Insightful)
Someone willing to go out and shoot people at random probably also makes other choices which are bad for society.
I'm not implying that the U.S. "correctional" system's crude methods are the best available, but someone who doesn't think about the effects of their actions before acting should be taken aside and "parented".
Claiming that GTA leads people to believe that random killing is normal is similar to claiming that watching Wheel of Fortune will lead people to expect that they can earn thousands of dollars as a result of doing crossword puzzles.
Re:Legal precedent? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sheltering is pretty much what it's all about.
Videogames aren't the real world, and it's appropriate to treat them as pedagogical - they can teach as much as they entertain. Responsible parents will react accordingly. Sometimes, the message that they are not supposed to play with this until they've achieved a certain maturity and moral distance is as much part of the message as any that's in the game itself.
Not that I think there's anything wrong with a measured amount of play-violence, either. That's a normal part of childhood, and I don't want to think you can nerf-ify a kid's entire life. Here's [justicetalking.org] a good discussion about it - I think Gerard Jones is right-on in his perspective [atlantisrising.com], but interestingly enough he doesn't let his kid play GTA3.
Do you have children? Would you let your kids watch porn? After all, they'll just want to watch it more...
Re:and who bought the game for the kids? (Score:2, Insightful)
1. How did they get the guns?
2. Who didn't notice that these two kids needed to be in therapy or on medication before this?
3. Are some form of consequences going to be leveled at the adult who is responsible for the firearms used?
Someone somewhere fscked up very very badly in creating a situation where two deranged or mentally challenged (or both?) teenagers had access to firearms and ammo.
Should that person or persons be held responsible? Well, an innocent bystander died because of their actions, inactions, or dereliction.
It's entirely possible that the kids who are being charged should more properly be locked up in psychiatric care. The better question is what should be done about whomever created this situation... and it obviously wasn't the game company.
So if I bombed Berlin? (Score:3, Insightful)
Could I blame that on Mattel's B-17 Bomber?
Or Microprose 50 Mission Crush?
zombie like -- must restore B-17 and Bomb Berlin.
Re: and who bought the game for the kids? (Score:5, Insightful)
The argument that GTA2, or any media, is to blame for one's actions is absurd. What should be explored is why these kids are feeble minded imbeciles. What is next - not allowing kids to read history (full of murder, rape, and violence) because we fear it might cause them kill? If you are simple minded enough to be persuaded by a video game to shoot someone in the head - you are either insane or a moron.
Maybe we could avoid a few of these cases if we included LOGIC somewhere in our public school's curriculum.
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:3, Insightful)
I wasn't allowed to play with gun toys and such when I was a kid. In the end I don't really think that was a huge contributor to my moral development (guns simply aren't a part of most people's lives), but being "sheltered" didn't hurt me any either. Really the point isn't whether your kid plays with guns - it's that he understands what they are, and an entire moral fundament about why hurting people isn't ok. If shielding him from gunplay (heh) lends him that understanding in passing, then hell yeah it's a good thing. Often the best way to acheive a goal is indirectly. Proscribing guns and GTA is just the catalyst; you're using them to draw attention to some things that are important. Nothing wrong with that.
Re:One mo' time... (Score:4, Insightful)
First off, the parents can't blame the game company for this: They bought the game. A game with a "Mature" rating called "Grand Theft Auto"? Did they think this was educational software? Apparently it didn't matter, because obviously it's not their responsibility to monitor what they buy for their kids, the game industry is supposed to be in charge of that right? PS2 = Babysitter. And now their kids got this idea that it's ok to shoot people because the parents who probably didnt' even teach them to take their pants down before they shit obviously didn't teach them that SHOOTING PEOPLE is wrong. So thank you Sony, and thanks Rockstar and Take Two. Christ, if only I was a little more irresponsible, I'd be a millionare.
Also, what is this tobacco company = game company shit? Tobacco companies lie about their products and the degree of harm they cause. Tobacco companies know cigarettes are addictive and they know cigarettes cause cancer and all kinds of other nasty stuff. Video games don't cause anything. People who immitate violent video games make a CONCIOUS CHOICE to do so.
...or is America so full of follow-the-leader zombies that people really don't have control? Parents who let the corporations babysit, kids who dont' know any better because the corporations sure ain't trying to teach them anything, no wonder we're in this mess. Those parents should be spade and neutered.
I love the quote from the article from one of the kids: "I didnt' mean to hurt anyone." Hey asshat, dont' shoot shotguns at the highway then, you fucking tool.
It's not the games, it's the people. Period.
Scott, I have to disagree (Score:3, Insightful)
Kids have played with tin soldiers, played cowboys and Indians, cops and robbers, and games in the same vein forever. The fact that the current game involving shooting happens to be a video game simply doesn't justify it. The kid playing the robber in cops and robbers didn't run out and blast a couple of police officers with a real revolver.
The problem here isn't that people are exposed to violence. It's that they aren't making a good, informed decision about real life. I'd rather that they have already thought about the fact that guns kill people, and it it's a pretty bad idea to run around shooting vehicles. Frankly, I think that shielding people from something is a poor way to help them deal with it. People *are* going to run into violence at some point in life, and I'd rather sit down, talk about, explain my feelings, and encourage a kid to do what I think is best then to try to hide what I disagree with from him.
Remember Freud? He had some really good insights about the hyper-repressive Victorian society of his time. Sexual repression can cause a bunch of personality problems. I'm not a fan of "hiding" things or "covering them up". If people are getting shot, talk about it.
The most common argument I've heard against a sensible conversation is that "Junior isn't old enough." That's ridiculous. Pure age has very little impact on the way you think -- maybe some homonal changes, but that's about it. The difference between a ten year old and a twenty year old is experience. The only way to get experience is to come into contact with things, and I'd strongly prefer that Junior hear from me what I consider reasonable early on.
That doesn't mean you should *try* to shove things down someone's throat. It just means not actively trying to hide them. If Junior wants to jerk off to nudie magazines, fine. If he sees people getting killed on TV, fine. Just be sure that you also provide some guidance.
Damn.... (Score:5, Insightful)
"I didn't want to hurt anyone," Joshua wrote.
Now, I'm not saying that these kids are kind of slow, but one would expect when you live in Tenesee where your parents let you wander over to the highway with some rifles, your parents would have taught you at the very least that when you shoot people with guns, they get hurt. I'm very certain that when these kids parents took them out Coon hunting or whatever brain dead sport people keep these useless pieces of trash around for (those would be guns) they explained very clearly that the buisness end of the gun should not be turned on other people and that when it was loaded and sighted, pulling the trigger would cause massive trauma to whatever was in front of the business end of the gun.
I'm sorry, but video games companies should start suing these kids and their parents for slander, because the other 500 million of us that played Grand Theft Auto have never shot anyone, and just becuase some retard, with a minimal understanding of causal relationships decides that blasting away with a gun is a good idea, doesn't mean that a game is involved. These people have been disconnected from reality for a good long while and it's time that we lock them away in quiet houses for crazy people where they belong.
To summarize, when you give a moron a gun, bad things happen. It is sincerely time to take people into account for their actions ("Hey kids you killed someone, wounded another, and cuased a deal of property damage, I'm thinking about letting you off on probation") it frustrates me to no end that this is the kind of society that we live in.
---
The second ammendment allows for the right of a well regulated militia to bear arms in defense of our nation.
---
You know what I just thought of, the core of the problem is that most people who own firearms (unless they're really messed up in the head) own guns for sport hunting. I think that the real root of this problem is that these people have introduced the idea of a gun as a source of entertainment far before video games.
Sorry, but your argument is nonsense (Score:4, Insightful)
Except, of course, that it's the family of the victims who are suing, and whom we might reasonably cut a little slack, not the parents of the shooters.
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Legal precedent? (Score:3, Insightful)
Honestly, because he probably is a scumbag. And dumb. Frivoulous lawsuits exist. That's why rule 11 exists. It was created in response to them. If I were your parents lawyers, I'd probably bring it up. There are going to be scumbag lawyers, just like there are scumbag doctors, and scumbag taxi drivers. The point I'm trying to make is that lawyers are not A) all bad like everyone seems to think and B) the only problem. Scumbag lawyers are only part of the problem. Bad laws (Congress), Bad Citizens (the girl in your parents case), and a lot of other bad people are involved.
psxndc
Opinion from a teenager... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Legal BS - taking responsiblity (Score:2, Insightful)
There are two types of parents; 1) they want to raise a healthy and productive kid or 2) they could care less, and do because they are suppose to/have to.
Someone who would raise a kid, and allow them to have access to guns (either by knowing where to get one, or by having theres accesible) are the ones who obviously dont care about raising them the right way. The loved ones of the victoms in these cases obviously want someone to pay (who would blame them, monetary or not), but suing someone into oblivion that has an attitude like that will get you know where - they could care less. When the victoms turn to someone else to make them pay for there loss - someone that has a consious, in a lot of ways it takes the blame off the carless parents that are responsible in the first place - the result? they keep being irresponsible and everyother dead beat parent out there follows in there foot steps...
For every action there is a reaction, if the reaction is pointless - the action will be deemed as pointless...
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:3, Insightful)
But still, guns were not invented and bought for olympic skeet shooting. They were made to kill.
I'm hardly brain-washed. I was born and raised on a farm in rural Virginia and many times me and my brother and Father went hunting for deer/squire/rabbit not for sport, but to actually put food on our table. Gloucester, Virgina...hell, even look me up in the yearbook. Was also a memeber of the NRA.
But I agree with you, guns are only a tool. Also, no where did you EVER read that I wanted guns banned. I was only speaking how I was raising my 10 year old. I live in a suburb of Chicago now, and going out hunting for deer to put food on my table isn't really needed anymore. Do I want guns banned? No, never said that. Do I want my son growing up knowing the true nature of guns and why people use them? Yes.
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:3, Insightful)
Comments (Score:3, Insightful)
2 - The truth that its not the firearm that is in question, its how its used. If he was at my house, he would learn to respect the firearm, and its appropraite useage. ( and storage, getting back to the orginal topic of those kids )
3 - Ever hear of sport shooting that involves things such as clay targets, paper targets, even tin can? Not much death involved there.. and its recognized by the Olympics if you need someone to declare the sport legitimate.
4 - Respect doesn't mean fear and misunderstanding. You are teaching fear to your children. Even if you don't realize it. "guns are bad, we must avoid them" - That is not teaching respect.
5 - See #2.
6 - The point? Defense of ones family and property isn't part of the discussion here. I don't care if you use a baseball bat to protect your house. That would be your choice.
7 - No, I'm not afraid or have penile envy, I am simply exercising my constitutional rights. You know.. the foundation of this country we live in. I also defend and exercise the other rights guaranteed to us Americans via the bill of rights, such as free speech.. just as a side note..
- And I'm done beating this horse ( nothing personal towards you, just tired of doing it ). Read my journal if you care to have a better insight of where I'm coming from.
Re:Comments (Score:5, Insightful)
But I stated in another post: Olympic trap and skeet shooting. Ok...one thing that takes a gun. A shotgun...But this is also a simulation of birds flying up while hunting. That is how skeet shooting got started...for practice in dove and pheasent hunting.
I was born and raised on a farm in rural Virginia and many times me and my brother and Father went hunting for deer/squire/rabbit not for sport, but to actually put food on our table. Was also a memeber of the NRA. And believe it or not, but in the early 80's I was also a gun dealer and pistolsmith.
Yes, there are sports I call "practice sports" such as silo competition (where the
But my main point is that most of these "sports" are simply practice for hunting. Target practice is practice of shooting a target so when a "real" target comes into a situation that you need to shoot it, you're better prepared to shoot it. True, not much death there, but these are mainly pratice for dealing death if that need should arise.
I changed I guess. In your view, they have a useage and we are given a right to have them. But in my view now, just having a right to have them doesn't mean I HAVE to have them. As far as defending my property, I have no defense. If someone wants to break into my house and murder me and my family, then they will have our dead bodies. Bodies that were going to die within the next 100 years anyway. They can kill me and I will die...but I will not take another life again.
There was this little bald guy that kicked the entire British empire out of his poor country...and never lifted a gun or sword or any weapon to do it.
Now, if teaching my child to be kind and gentle (or in your words fear) is screwing him up...then I guess I'm screwing him up.
Re: and who bought the game for the kids? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's one thing to let your five year old be responsible for feeding the goldfish. If he scews up the fish dies. It is another thing entirely to expect him to always be responsible with access to a gun. If he screws that up then a person might die.
Knowing the difference between reality and fantasy (Score:5, Insightful)
Never during my youth did I ever attempt to faithfully mimic any of my forms of entertainment in a dangerous way. I have never known a friend, a friend of a friend or even a dumbass kid who ever pulled stupid emulation tricks that ridiculously ended in some "willful" violent act.
This does not include accidents that were painfully stupid, of course... I remember hearing about a kid screwing around with a shotgun... eeeew.... not a pretty scar.... even then I thought to myself "what a dumbass!"
WHY did I have such a stark sense of reality that kids today seem to be missing? After all, that is the REAL problem here. It's not games we/they play. It's not the crap we/they watch on TV. A majority of kids actually do understand the difference between reality and fantasy or else we'd have a plague of mutant kids shooting up schools, writing Microsoft worms and virii, teenagers getting pregnant, dogs and cats sleeping together, mass hysteria!
Now I have sons and I let them play Mortal Kombat when everyone else says "No! They'll become evil mutant killer kids! It'll warp their impressionable little minds!" Sure enough, they began to emulate the games they played. The difference between my kids and the "odd" kids who don't understand reality? My sons somehow KNEW they should "pull their punches." They somehow KNEW that you can't and shouldn't attempt to rip a person's head off by the spine dripping blood all over my freshly cleaned carpet.
Clearly it's not the games. It's the influence the parents have over their children. Somehow people got some WEIRD ideas about raising kids. Here's a few of them: (in no specific order of significance)
1. Parents own their kids and no one can or will take them away! It's a socialist crime against nature to even try.
Here's a reality: NO! You don't! They are your responsibility. They are not your thing. They are not your hobby. They are not for your convenience and they aren't "cheap household labor." They are little versions of you and they embody all of your dreams and hopes. They can avoid making all the mistakes in life you made and you can have a vicarious second chance not to screw your life up as you did before. Most importantly, your self-elected job is to teach these little PEOPLE. So teach them!
2. No rational person goes about causing distruction. The only reason it could happen is a sheer lack of respect for other people, property and ultimately themselves.
This goes back to TEACHING YOUR DAMNED KIDS!!! I was taught. My kids are taught. Most of the kids my brothers have are taught. The only "trouble" I have seen from any of them were the STEP-KIDS of one of my brothers... he clearly has problems with reality and problems with respecting other people and property. Strangely, he has a "very good mother." She's one of those over-reactive, sheltering soccer-moms who is "ultra careful" and censoring.
Teach your kids to respect and understand reality. Don't do what my mother did -- preventing me from using a fork to eat with for fear I might hurt myself. Give your kids a frikken KNIFE and teach them how to use it properly and maybe even show them that when used improperly, injury can occur. That's how to teach respect for your environment and how to deal with and live within the realm of reality. Teach them to shoot guns properly; How to clean and maintain them; to be good at hitting the target and to understand that they are dangerous and deadly in the wrong hands and that there are serious consequences to misusing these tools.
TEACH THE KIDS!!! You're not "too busy."
And for those who aren't taught... for those who raise defective kids... HOLD THEM 100% responsible. It's a frikken tragedy that their failure as a parent would actually have repercussions on themselves... but this is kind of like conventional corporate mentality... they can do bad things because they kn
Re:You are actually a bigot, not a parent (Score:4, Insightful)
Guns are used for nothing but killing, whether you respect them or not...
Why always US? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:2, Insightful)
Most kids DON'T want to watch more... plenty of children get porn spam in their email these days, and in my experience, they're mostly uninterested until they hit a certain age.
Unless their parents have reinforced the notion that there's something nasty and forbidden about the human body, and the act(s) of sex. Then suddenly it's *really interesting*.
9/11 bull**** (Score:2, Insightful)
Stop using it as a crutch.
And to further your personal beliefs.
Fuckers.
I'm signing this too. It's that important to me.
Re:Legal BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:War (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Comments (Score:2, Insightful)
This same guy also said:
"Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms, as the blackest." - Mahatma Ghandi
Pacifism is great, but it only works against a basically moral enemy. Those without qualms about killing all who oppose them will do so. See Iraq, 6 months ago, Somolia, or any other number of examples. The British couldn't slaughter countless Indians to enforce their rule- one general who did slaughter a number of resisting indians was quickly court marshalled.
I respect that you take responsibility for your childrens upbringing, and what they are exposed to, but I question your reluctance to defend them from bodily harm with the same vigor.
Aren't their bodies as important as their minds to growing up healthy? Why should someone who has no business harming your children be alowed to do so? Maybe you're willing to give up your life to not kill another person, but are you willing to surrender the lives of your wife and children just the same?
Raising your children to be kind and gentle isn't screwing them up by any means, but kindness and gentility won't keep them safe from those who would harm them- there is evil in this world, and keeping it at bay may require violence.
Well, just my two cents.
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Mate I'm from Australia too, and I have just one (1) word for you "Fucken Bullshit!" (*In Australian English the word 'fucken' doesn't count as a word, cause you don't even realise you are using it half the time.)
Yes as a parent you bear a LARGE responsibility, absolutely. The parent poster above is to be commended, or rather, this is what we should expect of every parent. I totally agree that too many parents are just way to passive in deciding which influences will be formative of their offspring.
HOWEVER, as a parent you are just never going to have 100% control over what influences your kid is exposed to. Well not unless you belong to some wierd religious cult that keeps kids locked away from the real world.
To think it makes no difference what the kind of teachers kids have, or what kind of educational environment they are exposed to is just delusional. By law, you have to surrender your children to the tender mercies of some educational facility for something like 30 hours a week. (Again unless you are some whacko cultist, or a hippy homeschooler or something). If the school I send my kids to fucks up in some major way in regard to them, you can bet your life on this, I'll sue their fucken arses off!
And if you think the media have no influence, you are just living on cloud cuckoo-land!
The media, teachers, the producers of entertainment will hopefully enjoy a large measure of freedom of speech, as is fit to any democractic society. We wouldn't want it any other way. However, that doesn't mean they can simply shrug off their responsibility for the calculable effects their contribution produces. If Hezbollah TV (which until recently was screening in Australia), exorts young children to become suicide bombers (which it does), Hezbollah TV bears at least some repsonsibility for the outcome their utterances were calculated to produce.
In fact, children learn not only from parents, teachers, the media etc, they learn from every person they see doing something. And this doesn't only apply to children! Remember: Every act you commit in public, serves as a model for others to emulate . As individuals, we have more power than we realise, to influence the culture we inhabit.
Not quite as hard as it seems. (Score:3, Insightful)
It may not seem like it now, but having parents who have an attitude that element x is bad, who adamantly stick to this presumption, and who explain it rationally to their kids really has a big effect on the kids. Especially if it's something that really makes sense, like non-violence. My parents always wanted me to respect authority, but I never did, and still don't because authority is stupid. However, I've always stayed away from drugs, including cigarettes, which my friends regularly indulged in, because I was always under the assumption they were evil. I was never exposed to the idea that smoking might be cool or fun until I was in high school, and by then I could figure it out for myself. Being in an environment where it's just assumed that violence is stupid is the kind of thing that will stick with a kid more or less automatically. It may seem like you need to try hard to avoid exposing your kids to violence, but merely having a household that carries the attitude that violence is implicitly stupid is more than likely enough. I wouldn't worry about it, as long as you're setting a good example for your kids and are talking to them about it, it will stick.
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:1, Insightful)
Blame the game? As if 16 year old kids haven't seen a movie where someone shoots acar. Blame the parents? Parents are expected to censor a 16-year-old's video game violence exposure? Maybe. But most of the blame belongs with the kids.
16 is two years away from 18, the legal age of an adult. It's their own damn fault.
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know why people would think a kid that was half-way normal might blow up or kill people from watching TV/playing video games, etc. I knew plenty of kids growing up that played Mortal Combat, DOOM, etc that never ever decided it would be "cool" to go off killing people. If such games/TV caused a kid or adult to become violent there is something seriously WRONG with that person..
And trust me, even if there were no violent video games or movies, kids that weren't normal would still think up these kind of things even if it just meant throwing rocks at drivers or bashing some other kid's head in with an axe.
Simple. (Score:3, Insightful)
That's easy. Nobody.
If the perpetrator of a crime cannot make restitution, the victim does not have any further recourse. It sucks, but that's just the way it works. Life ain't fair.
I must admit that I completely fail to understand why a software developer should be held to legal responsibility for a couple of dumbshits shooting at cars. Hell, I've had a bad couple of years - if I go on a rampage and shoot a few people, I'm sure someone's responsible for that - Oh, not me, surely some television show, or Id software, or maybe those people who fired me, or those other people who didn't accept my proposal, of that guy who looked at me funny on the subway...
The fact is that looking for a source of compensation for a tragedy has turned in to sick game of extortion by lawyer. I'm very interested in law, and may actually go back to school to pick up more knowledge here, but this sort of thing is a gross abuse of what law is supposed to provide - a fair, level field for people to prosper or not, to the best of thier own abilites.
Re:other side of the coin (Score:3, Insightful)
I can't say I agree with this logic. I believe that the penal system's role should not be to lash out at whomever makes an easy target, but to attempt to make sure that those who commit wrongs do not repeat such behaviour.
I believe that slapping the makers of GTA with a multimillion-dollar judgement is wrong because it has negative effects upon society. Take2 didn't commit the violent acts, and passing the onus of retribution on to them simply shows that despite admitting wrongdoing, the boys won't have to be held entirely responsible for their actions.
The legal system isn't there to compensate victims, it's there to make sure that those who commit wrongs don't repeat them. Forcing Take2 to pay millions will not affect those who might take to the streets with firearms in the future, and it implies that the blame lies not on the shoulders of those who fired shots, but on an "evil" game company.
This is further bad because it leads people to believe that all companies are inherently bad. If a board of directors already thinks that whatever they do will be seen as evil in the public eye, they will take less care not to act immorally for fear of tainting a company's reputation. Thus, instead of people saying, "That company acted immorally!", we have, "Well, yeah, corporations are evil. What else would you expect?"
I'll take the higher taxes. I'd be glad to contribute 5% of my pre-tax income to ensure that blame falls in the lap of those responsible for stupid actions, and that the government will be able to afford to help victims of violence.
Sorry if I sound cynical, I do truly appreciate your response -- it's one of the most interesting things I've read in a good while, and explains much of the seemingly stupid lawsuits seen almost daily.