Halo 3 Criticized In Murder Conviction 839
oldwindways writes "An Ohio teen was found guilty of murdering his mother and shooting his father in the head after they took away his copy of Halo 3. One has to wonder if this is going to have any effect on the games industry. Clearly, the AP thought they could stir up something controversial by asking the IP owner for a statement: 'Microsoft, which owns the intellectual property for the game, declined to comment beyond a statement saying: "We are aware of the situation and it is a tragic case."' I suppose the good news is they did not accept his insanity plea, so no one can claim that Halo 3 drove him insane. Even so, I don't think anything good can come out of this for gamers."
Unfortunately, it seems somebody can claim that the game was a contributing factor; the judge who presided over this case said he believes that the 17-year-old defendant "had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents, they would be dead forever." GamePolitics has further details from the judge's statement. It doesn't help that the boy's lawyers used video game addiction as a defense.
Re:Or... (Score:4, Interesting)
If he had a caffeine addiction and his parents took away his Coke would that mean that it was the fault of the Coke that he murdered them?
What if he had a cocaine addiction and his parents took away his cocaine?
What if he was an alcoholic and his parents took away his booze?
It's just a matter of defining clearly what constitutes a deranged mind and what is conscious murder intention and/or idiocy. With no regard to the cause of the derangment, nor whether it's chemical or not.
That clear definition is quite harder to produce than it might seem.
Stupid people (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Or... (Score:3, Interesting)
As far as I know, such arguments have no legal bearing. A planned murder is first degree murder, even if you took away the crackhead's stash. Such issues might be considered during sentencing.
Yes, but a large number of crimes of that kind also suggest the possibility of a prohibition on crack.
Re:Sure, 17 year-olds believe this because of a ga (Score:4, Interesting)
People should stay dead when they're killed (except maybe if they're zombies
You might think this would ruin the game, make it useless - but it wouldn't. It would raise the stakes for the player (don't you find a life lasts much longer in an arcade game, when you have to pay for more) and speed up the turnover of the game, raising the income for the writer. Some things would have to change to make the game saleable, but ultimately it would be more involving.
Re:guns (Score:5, Interesting)
It is still possible but it requires no hesitation, no emotion, and a minimal physical strength.
In case one of these criterion is missing, a gun can help. With a gun you can kill someone out of anger, while filled of contradictory emotions, while crying and without really wanting it. That is how must murders are made. As you pointed out, when carefully planned, a murder do not require a gun. Guns are too noisy and too easy to track down.
Re:Sure, 17 year-olds believe this because of a ga (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sure, 17 year-olds believe this because of a ga (Score:5, Interesting)
True, but that would be a fun sort of game. Imagine you can have multiple characters - say, a hundred - and this is your own personal "team". Each one on the team has their own individual skills - some randomly given out at spawning, and some trained. Keep the "max skill" cap low and not all that difficult to obtain.
It could be an FPS played just like a sports sim. Some of your team could be on the injured list (things like missing limbs could be explained away by a futuristic setting), and some might outright die and enter "the graveyard", where they are immortalized with their scores, skills, appearance, etc.
This would make a game where Medics are useful - you don't want to lose that guy you spent 2 hours maxing out his skills (ideally, I think that's as long as it should take, tops). You'd sure as hell appreciate the doc when you get revived on the field instead of dying of heart failure. People would actually use COVER and tactics to protect their investments of time.
Lastly, think of the achievments - longest survivor, etc. I think something like this could be fun if it were designed properly.
Inverted logic ? (Score:5, Interesting)
So yet me see:
- teenager plays Halo 3 for weeks/months/years: does not kill anyone.
- same teenager *stops* playing said game for 1 day: shoots both parents.
So does that mean that playing the game *stopped* him killing real people ?
Re:guns (Score:2, Interesting)
The Gun is Civilization, by Maj. L. Caudill, USMC (Ret)
Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or make me do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.
In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.
When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.
The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.
There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.
People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.
Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.
People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.
The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.
When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation...and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.
Re:Sure, 17 year-olds believe this because of a ga (Score:5, Interesting)
No, they're called retarded. There isn't a religon that I'm aware of that doesn't ackowledge that you cease to be a human upon death, and all of them believe its likely to be a one way trip. Some believe in an afterlife, some beleive we go back into a pool of life force, some believe in reincarnation. All of them believe your human life is over.
Re:Sure, 17 year-olds believe this because of a ga (Score:1, Interesting)
Why? Who else is responsible for the upbringing and mental health of this child?
The parent is responsible, but that doesn't always mean they're to blame. There are many cases like this where the parents simply did everything they could and the kid still turned out rotten.
Helps to read the artical (Score:3, Interesting)
The guy tried to claim that Halo3 made him do it, the judge basically threw that out and called him a cold calculated killer.
They guy is obviously nuts and his defense is trying any old thing to get him off.
Other stupid defenses I can suggest:
* TV made him do it.
* McDonalds made him do it (he must have eaten McD's some time in his life).
* The gun made him do it.
* Society made him do it.
* Aliens made him do it.
Re:murder weapon? (Score:3, Interesting)
Are these the same "rational people" that work 120 hour weeks programming for a big business, and refuse to unionize? If so, I know a lot of these rational people, and I can tell you that they're clearly insane.
On the subject though, I know a lot of people who have concealed carry permits - in new york city, no less - and they're pretty normal people. Two of them are cops, one of them is an ex-cop, three of them are hunters, and a few of them just happen to love guns.
They've all had their permits for at least the past 10 years, have a loving family, and have never killed anyone. In fact, the three people (two guys, one gal, for the record) that have firearms only because they love them usually keep the firing mechanism separate from the rest of the guns, which are usually on display in a glass case.
So, these gun nuts seem fairly rational to me.
Of the three that are/were cops, they've all had their lives threatened in some way. i.e. "when I get out of jail I'll kill you" so I can see them having a carry permit based entirely around self defense (and not that "because I'm a cop, hurdurkdurk" bullshit excuse).
Of course, that's in a big city, where a madman running around with a gun can easily rake up a death toll in the hundreds just by looking down a busy street and opening fire ... and they've never had the urge to do that. That seems pretty rational to me.
Maybe you're talking about some sort of irrational backwoods person? Well if that's the case, I can attest that people who live out in the country tend to need those rifles. Working on a goat farm, I saw first hand how much carnage one lone coyote can do, and how much money (percentage of family income, not raw numbers) can be lost if there's just one attack in a month. So owning a few rifles so the family can wake up and hunt the coyote that's literally eating your livelihood doesn't really seem all that irrational.
Maybe you're talking about the same people who have concealed carry permits in small towns? Well, some small towns have the highest burglary/murder rate in the country, so that would have to be evaluated on a case by case basis. Living in a town like, say, Flint, MI, for example, one would probably want to carry a weapon with them.
Maybe you're talking about the inner-city kid who grew up around gang violence, lived long enough to see his brothers killed in a drive by, his sisters raped or impregnated by deadbeats, his mom killed in a break in, and his dad arrested for killing strangers? Hell, if I was that kid my rational mind would tell me to carry a firearm with me at all times.
So, are the irrational people the ones who take their dates to a firing range, rent two rifles, and shoot targets for a couple of hours? Hell, every date I've taken to a firing range has said they loved the experience, some of them even considered it a turn on.
Hmm ...
No, I'm pretty sure most people that have guns can rationalize their position fairly easily. I'm fairly certain that "rational people" own a large percentage of the firearms in the United States.
Re:Sure, 17 year-olds believe this because of a ga (Score:2, Interesting)
The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour ar
Re:Sure, 17 year-olds believe this because of a ga (Score:1, Interesting)
Kinda hard to sell suicide bombing and similar sports any other way.
Newsflash: Kamikaze's didn't do it for religious reasons.
Re:Or... (Score:3, Interesting)
as evidenced by the fact that a 17 year old was tried as an adult. Despite not being an adult.
At 17, you can see an R-rated or NC-17 rated movie, drive a car, attend college, and with proper consent, get married, have kids, and serve your country in the military.
Somehow, I'm finding less and less justification in calling a 17-year old "just a kid", especially when used as a bullshit loophole for the defense with a crime like this.
Re:No on actually reads that thing (Score:1, Interesting)
You're ignorant. Lot's offering of his daughters to the mob was a demonstration of his good hospitality toward travelers, which stood in contrast to the mob that was being rude to guests. Hospitality toward strangers was actually a very important part of the cultural mythologies of ancient peoples. It factored heavily into Greek culture too. You know precisely from his being spared the destruction of the city that he was a good man, but you project your current values onto him precisely ignoring the original point that the Old Testament is fucking evil by any modern set of mores. That. Is. Irony.
Re:No on actually reads that thing (Score:2, Interesting)
Well, it seems to me that you either accept that God killed innocent children in Egypt or you don't. If he *didn't*, then it's just a interesting story or a parable (an idea most modern Christians, especially fundie types, would outright reject). If he *did*, then he's hardly the kind loving, compassionate God that most modern Christians seem to conceive of him as (or he has changed over time, an idea both rejected by fundies and downright silly considering that you're ostensibly talking about an omniscient, omnipresent being).
As for historical context, OF COURSE the Bible makes sense as a historical document. Why does it talk about polygamy? Because the contemporary Hebrews in those accounts practiced it. Why does it excuse Rome for Jesus' crucifixion? Because that part of it was written by Roman citizens. But modern Christians and Jews treat the Bible as a lot more than just some interesting historical document. They assert that it's some ultimate guide to modern life. They assert this with an kind of willful obliviousness that's actually rather amusing. They pick and choose some passages that seem to support some modern position, and blithely ignore the glaring disconnect between modern values and those of the ancient Hebrews, Diaspora-era Hebrews, and Greek-speaking Romans of the 1st and 2nd centuries.