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.
and who bought the game for the kids? (Score:4, Interesting)
who?
Re:Legal precedent? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe then they'd stop taking all these crap lottery cases.
obvious... (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the guy who said that the DC snipers were gamers and got nearly every mainstream media outlet to beleive it. This is also the guy who sent a 13 year old (possibly his son, I don't remember exactly) into Best Buy to guy M rated games. He has very good PR and is very good at getting media coverage beacuse he gives the media the kind of hysteria laden sound bites they love. This guy has an agenda and he needs to be watched out for.
Re:other side of the coin (Score:2, Interesting)
At the very least, everyone should be able to agree that games/movies/tv are putting ideas into kids heads.
Re:Well obviously (Score:3, Interesting)
Idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Violent games don't always look that bad when you look at the covers. Take GTAIII, it's all cartoon style violence. Ok there's big guns and explosions but is that much different to the box if Action Man?
Video games are more immersing than traditional toys and this is the problem.
Why do they think this will work? (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, it wouldn't work without an unhealthy dose of denial on the part of the parents. You really have to have your head in the sand (or someplace else dark and possibly more moist, and certainly stinkier) to not realize that it's your parenting to blame here, not the game. When I was just a wee lad I had an NES and I played zelda, metroid, etc, but I never ended up picking up a sword or some kind of plasma cannon (well, that last part was only because they weren't readily available, but on a related note, parents who leave guns out are part of this problem too) and going out to kill people, damage property with it, et cetera. On the other hand, I did do a little graffiti 'tagging', and some petty acts of vandalism, in spite of not having any games which even had vandalism in them. A simpler time, indeed.
The fact is that if the kids couldn't have gotten their hands on guns in the first place none of this would have happened. This is not about gun control, except in the sense of controlling your own guns. Personally I think that when someone's kids grab their guns and run around shooting things with them, that person should have their right to own firearms revoked permanently on the grounds that they are not responsible enough to own them.
Further, while this is not covered by this article or anything, we should never ever be trying children as adults. They do not have the rights, why give them the responsibilities? Punish the parents and take their children away from them. (If the kids killed someone, I think you really ought to just go ahead and sterilize both parents, too, but I'm kind of doubting too many people will be behind me on that one.) Sure, a foster home or the state probably won't do a great job raising the kids, but obviously the parents themselves aren't accomplishing much.
bad press and laws (Score:3, Interesting)
Our LAN customers are mainly between 15-18 yrs old, but some are significantly younger, like 10-12 yrs. The parents we've had in our store have mostly either recognized the games, and been o.k. with it, or specifically told their children not to play certain ones. I think the parents we've run into recognize that raising their kids *is* their responsibility, and they have to keep track of what they do in their free time.
Just a couple miles away in the neighboring town, there's an ordinance stating that patrons under 16 years of age need parental consent to play anything at a gaming center. I don't know if anyone actually follows these ordinances, but its the kind of laws that ppl could pass that makes running a LAN center (what I consider to be the "modern" arcade) a royal PITA.
Re: other side of the coin? (Score:2, Interesting)
Sure, the parents are greiving the loss of their kids. Who wouldn't? That doesn't mean I'm automatically going to "cut them some slack" though. Looks to me like a classic case of poor parenting catching up with them.
First, there's the obvious question of "How did they get ahold of the guns?" But assuming the guns were somehow borrowed/purchased from school buddies and the parents had no way of knowing about it, there's the bigger and even more important issue: Why weren't these kids brought up with a little more respect for human life? Why weren't they taught a little something about responsibility for one's actions? How did they get all the way to their teenage years without having any desire/motivation to do something more with their lives than go out and shoot at cars, trying to live out some video game fantasy?
Teens might be "more impressionable" than adults, but that's only by design. We're all born as babies with a "clean slate", and we strive to fill it with knowledge and information as we go through life. Teenagers may have all of the "basics" down, but their "slate" isn't quite filled with the more complex concepts yet. They're still trying to define their place in society, their personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof), and draw their own lines in the grey areas between "right" and "wrong" that suit them. If parents don't care enough to assist in any of this - then they might not like the results.
things to consider (Score:1, Interesting)
Does that mean the clients are not responsible for this? Of course not, however in situations where a family is feeling trapped and powerless with no end in site, it doesn't take much to turn them. At first the lawywer makes it sound like it is all about "doing the right thing" and striking out against the evil capitalists bent on destroying families and the working man. The greed is that way conveniently hidden until later.
In the end it is of course a combination of foolishness and greed, because if anyone was really interested in "doing good" they would consider the effect of shifting responsibility and accountability to innocent parties. So what happens when their goal of worldwide destruction of all media that is seen as a bad influence is met? Well, ummm... they probably didn't think.
Parents need to quit being stupid. Stop making excuses for your kids and parent them. Parents need to stop blaming others and start kicking their kids asses. If little Johnny likes playing with guns, then little Johnny can enjoy his new life in a military school. If little Johnny can't comprehend the danger to property and more important lives of others (and not respect them) then little Johnny can spend time in a real correction institute where he will find that a life of slavery, beatings, starvation and having his legs broken daily would be preferable... all while learning some self discipline and reasoning skills.
Kick the kids asses as hard as you can, let them know clearly that such actions are not acceptable and come not only with heavy penalties but that is on top of the responsibilities for their actions. Make them pay in full the amount to repair the vehicles and then treat them like animals.
I am tired of seeing irresponsible animals make life difficult for others. Those of us who are responsible and ADD to society should not suffer from this stupidity. Again... KICK THESE LITLE BASTARD'S ASSES. They most likely think they are too good for silly things like law, much less respecting others. Typical of this mentality they will be the first to scream about their own personal "rights" if you try to make them pay for their actions (literally pay, like in $$$) or punish and monitor them. Sorry, rights are for those that deserve them, namely those who didn't make a conscious choice to do something stupid.
I repeat once more... KICK THOSE LITTLE BASTARD'S ASSES. Next we will kick the asses of the parents for not monitoring their kids. How did the kids buy the game? Obviously they lack the intelligence and reasoning skills to differentiate between a mindless fictional arena and real life. I don't feel like sharing my oxygen with stupid people. Furthermore I don't feel safe with idiots like that on the street. Then again... how can you expect kids to learn responsibility when the ONLY two responsible parties are exhonerated through a legal farce that is nothing more than passing the buck. I am surprised the legal system does not allow a plead of "Your a poopypants" or "judge, yo mamma so fat."
This lawyer needs his ass kicked next. I really hope people will start getting pissed and get pissed at the correct people. I can't stand mob mentality but here it might be acceptable to have the family and lawyers be couped inside a small shed surrounded by very angry people armed with baseball bats, chains and pitchforks.
Why must stupid people constantly ruin things for everyone else. Note: I could care less about the game... I personally think that game dev's show little restraint in their games and bow to the lowest common denominator much like the lawyers. (i.e. whore yourself if it sells good enough) However, there _IS_ a ranking system and with this game there _IS_ a very large amount of notoriety surrounding it...
Videogames DO infleunce kids, but then... (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:5, Interesting)
And 90% of the time, the parent nods and says yes, they know. And then the kid, insulted that I had to point out how young they are, brags that they've already played that game before. And they often mention that they've already played GTA: Vice City.
At least it's not as bad as when the kids come up to the counter with a game without a parent. Those kids are just plain jerks sometimes.
"But my mom is _waiting_ right _there_ in the _car_."
That's great, legally she has to be in store.
"You can call my dad at home!"
Anybody who picks up the phone and sounds male could sound like your dad to me. I can't do it.
"*walks out swearing up a storm to their mom in the car*"
Buncha savages in this town.
Re:interesting idea... (Score:3, Interesting)
Someone know why they don't they teach logic in public schools? Blows my mind... I hear Informal Logical Fallacies [cocc.edu] at least 20 times a day! If not in person - in the news (tv, paper, etc.) Matter of fact, I would estimate that 80 percent of all the arguments I hear anywhere contain at least one. We need to engrain these in our youth, and maybe we will end up with fewer morons (like these two kids).
Re:Legal precedent? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
My parents have just been sued by a tenant who claimed to have suffered $10 million in pain and suffering by falling down the stairs in their apartment building, oh, and that my father pushed her.
She did however neglect to mention that she was drunk off her ass, forced her way into another tenants apartment, assaulted them, and fell down under her own power (or rather, lack of stability), and much of this is on video. Also, she fell down two carpetted steps to land on a carpetted landing, and was SO pained by the fall that she refused to let the EMTs take her to the hospital until the police arrested my father (which they eventually didn't).
Now I ask, what kind of scumbag of a lawyer does she have that would file a $10 million suit against us on her behalf? The insurance company took our statements and saw the video and the case in their opinion is so frivilous that they're not even willing to settle with her for any amount and will actually take it to court.
Why would her lawyer get involved in this?
Re:other side of the coin (Score:2, Interesting)
1. "it's the parents' responsibility to teach those kids that there is a difference between reality and fiction." Okay, why would parents need to do this if kids weren't impressionable.
2. "Asking where the parents were doesn't concede any point that kids are impressionable, it demonstrates that parents haven't done their job." Mhmm.. their job being to tell kids the difference between fact and fiction, because they're impressionable. Right?
3. Bad grammar
4. Once someone no longer needs a parent hanging over them to prevent them from getting ideas, they aren't really kids any more, just adults with very few legal rights.
It's kind of hard to formulate a rational argument rebutting your points because despite your tone, you're basically agreeing with me. We need parents to keep kids from going around shooting/raping/burning/etc because thats what they're seeing all the time. Be realistic, not everyone is as [your adjective here] as you/me/slashbots are.
Re:Comments (Score:2, Interesting)
One of the best interpretations of the constitution for a long time!
I live in a small (populationwise) country which has bigger guns/men ratio than your country. Yet the "killings with a gun"/men ratio is something like 100x lower than yours.
Why?
Because you can't buy a gun or ammo if you don't have a licence! To get a licence you apply for one from the local police station. If it's your first they probably want to talk about it with you for a while (just to make sure that you're "ok"). They also run a routine background check on you (having a criminal record doesn't help when applying for a licence) and you really should be a member of a hunting club or "sport shooter" club. That last one is not mandatory, but if you're not a member, the friendly police officer is going to be extra "careful" when interviewing you. Oh, and you're also not allowed to take that gun to anywhere else than shooting track or hunting.
So every reasonable person can get a gun for reasonable purposes - that's reasonable, eh?
Criminals and villains have to "go to the black market" to get one and to get ammo. Black market sellers have a high risk of getting caught. Armed robberies are 'safe' in a sense that only the other half has guns. You give the money, thief runs away, police later catches the thief, you get your money back.
I don't need a gun, 'cos I don't need one. It's simple.
---
Its an all around failure ok? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:3, Interesting)
I sure can't see any other reason for them to file suit against the game company, especially with statements from their crackpot lawyer like, "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."
I think his first statement is really what the lawsuit is all about...
If I was a shareholder in the company that produced GTA (I'm not), I'd be congratulating them for a good product. But then I'm obviously biased based on what I just said, huh?
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:3, Interesting)
You obviously never had a sibling.
Seriously violence is all around us it touches everything we do and always will. It is the ultimate trump card, it shapes the world in which we live more than anything. Great passion, honor, valor, sacrifice, spirituality, artistic expression are often born from violence. Violence and blood shed move Picasso to paint Guernica.
Does this mean violence is a good thing, certainly not. Violence in all its forms is part of human nature and it always will be. A child only months old is capable of violence not because it is learned behavior, but because it is second nature.
Children of all ages need to be exposed to some violence in an age appropriate manner so that they may learn what is acceptable and when.
The problem isn't teaching kids to be violent, its not teaching them restraint and control.
Re:I'm a parent. (Score:1, Interesting)
My seven year old daughter thinks my wife can just go down to the bank and take out some money for toys. She doesn't realize that (a) the bank isn't just giving money away, we have to actually earn it to put it in there, and (b) the money you spend isn't re-usable, she can't spend everything on toys and still expect to have food on the table and clothes on her back.
And so we come to kids seeing people in computer games shooting each other and getting back up again to shoot someone else. Nothing harmful there for you and me, right, but what about our sample child? What happens when our kid picks up a gun in the real world and points it at somebody: they can pull the trigger they'll just get back up again, right?
Kids will figure this stuff out at different ages. Parents still need to play the censor and they need to know their own children well enough to know when they're ready for tougher concepts - the censorship ratings should only be considered guidelines.
Re:Legal BS (Score:2, Interesting)
I think these kids knew exactly what the fuck were doing, especially the 16 year-old. They just woke up one day, loaded up a fucking rifle and started shooting up trucks and people because they were bored? Fuck yeah, that's a credible story alright.
If I were one of his victims, I would sue his parents for leaving an unsecured gun around a mentally disabled child.
Let's not insult mentally disabled people here!
When was the last time you saw a mentally disabled child go on a shooting spree? The fuckers knew what they were doing. They did it because they have no regard for human life, they have twisted and cruel fantasies which eventually were realised in real life, and they are just plain evil.
I knew the difference between right and wrong when I was 16, or 14. I think it's more than reasonable to accept that the overwhelming majority of kids do.
Tough shit kids, you murder or maim someone, you go to jail. Reality bites, huh? Guess those combat fantasies weren't worth it after all.
What the victims' families should do is sue the hell out of the murderers/perpetrators. When they get out of jail (unfortunately it seems like they will do so very soon) they should be made to compensate the victims families. Sounds fair?
Fuck no, it isn't fair. No amount of money can make up for the loss of a human life.
I apologise for the excessive swearing. But right now, I am mad as hell that these scumbags can get away so lightly for out-and-out murder.