Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government Entertainment Games News

Games Made Me Do It Defense Didn't Work 104

Posted by Zonk from the saw-right-through-that-one dept.
BuddingMonkey wrote to mention a heartening ruling from a judge who saw beyond the anti-gaming hype. CNN is reporting that Devin Moor has been found guilty of murder, in a well publicized case where the defendant stated that video games caused his behavior. From the article: "Prosecutor Lyn Durham said Tuesday that Moore knew what he was doing when he grabbed a patrolman's gun and killed two officers and a radio dispatcher. 'And he knew it was wrong,' she said."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Games Made Me Do It Defense Didn't Work More

Games Made Me Do It Defense Didn't Work

Comments Filter:

  • No Shit... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    This comment brought to you by the committee to purge the BS from Gaming...

    --
    Have you tried your Hot Coffee lately?

  • ...also (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @09:53PM (#13291486)
    Video games made me pour Hot Coffee all over my naked girlfriend!

  • Sad... (Score:5, Informative)

    by darthgnu ( 866920 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @09:58PM (#13291512) Homepage Journal
    Some people have to stop living in the past, it is way too easy to blame your past for violent action. It is important to realise that one can change if he wants to. However, David Suzuki, host of the TV show "The Nature of Things" presented a documentary about violent behavior. According to this documentary, violent behavior would be developped around the ages of 2 to 6. The key to preventing violent behavior would be in the way you correct children for unsociable behavior. The teenage years would only reflect this early teaching, but since it shows more in this stage of development, video games and movies get too often blamed for this.

    • Re:Sad... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Ieshan ( 409693 ) <<ieshan> <at> <gmail.com>> on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @10:24PM (#13291632) Homepage Journal
      "...it is way too easy to blame your past for violent action..."

      Well, yeah. It's easy to blame your past for *any* action.

      There's plenty to be said for the kid's instinct. I don't really think it's unfair to say that he did what he did because it had worked for him before in other impulsive situations. He stole a gun from a cop and shot all three in the head. He wasn't shooting blindly, he was executing with intent to escape. He must have learned this *somewhere*.

      But I feel as though it's an absurd defense to blame Grand Theft Auto for a shooting and claim it obscures your judgement of right and wrong. That doesn't mean he didn't learn "technique" or behaviour from a videogame, but that'd be like blaming Law and Order: SVU for a rape charge. We see plenty of things we're not supposed to do all the time on TV, in movies, and in games. We don't do them in real life because we understand the difference between the two things.

      • Nod (Score:3, Interesting)

        by imstanny ( 722685 )
        Indeed. People have a tendency to confuse correlation with causation. Which is precisely why these types of frivolous law suits exist.

        And it also sickens me that it has become a trend not to take responsibility for your own actions. Like blaming obesity on McDonalds.
        Now I want to file a law suit. Umm, let's see...for mental anguish caused as a result of being subjected to stupidity.

      • that'd be like blaming Law and Order: SVU for a rape charge.

        I am a HUGE fan of Law and Order: Lenny (aka the original series). "SVU" or "CI" never made an impression on me; they just seemed "slightly more extreme and more dodads to keep the unwashed masses watching".

        The final straw was last weekend, when I caught a Law and Order Criminal Intent (I think) episode- where a young man was drugging young women and doing things to them. One victim had her calf muscles cut out of her legs while she was aliv

        • Re:Child mindsets, Law and Order Criminal Intent (Score:5, Insightful)

          by Anonymous Custard ( 587661 ) on Thursday August 11, 2005 @12:37AM (#13292110) Homepage Journal
          "The final straw was last weekend, when I caught a Law and Order Criminal Intent (I think) episode- where a young man was drugging young women and doing things to them. One victim had her..."

          I can't believe this sick crap is considerd to be top-rated, good prime-time television, but one second of janet jackson's blurry patially-revealed nipple brings on an enormous fcc fine.
        • "Is that why children think there's Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, etc?"

          Small point, but they believe in Santa and the Easter Bunny because their parents, whom they trust implicitly, lied to them about it from the moment they were old enough to understand the concept.

          They see images of Santa and the Easter Bunny, but it's the parents who (explicitely, by telling them or implicitly, by playing along and not correcting them) tell the child they're real, and should be believed-in.

          Ditto violence and anti-social

        • Children up until a certain age have NO CONCEPT of the difference between cartoons and real life, or video and real life. They have little developed sense of judgement, either.

          Yeah, after watching Bugs Bunny cartoons, kids are dropping anvils on each other in the schoolyard all the time. I suppose that if we're really conservative with the 'up until a certain age' statement, there is some basis of reality in what you just said, however; I do not feel that it applies to any school-aged kids. Children c

        • For what it's worth, this is basically what Jeffrey Dahmer did in real life. Since the shows strive for some measure of realism, it's not that far out of bounds to import real-life events into their dramas.
      • Umm, it doesn't take GTA or any other violent media to figure out that shooting someone in the head would be a way to escape a situation. If you have the intent to kill, any moron would shoot at the head. If there wasn't violent media, do you expect criminals running around shooting people in their toes and being confused when they don't go down?
      • Right, the kid must've learned to shoot a gun somewhere, but, first of all, he could've learned it from paintball. Second of all, if he did in fact learn it from the media, he could've learned it from anything, not just video games - he could've learned it from a movie he saw.

        I do think that the video game thing does have some truth in it, though, because some kids have been playing video games since they were very young - however, I think this says more about the negative effects of bad parenting more t

        • "It's not good to let young children see too many violent movies or play too many violent games because that's when children are developing their sense of right and wrong."

          Why?

          I have an older brother who loved horror movies, so literally the first movies I ever remember seeing were chock full of violence. I basically popped out and became a child of Nightmare on Elm Street.

          There's a lot of time in one day, my mom had plenty of time to teach me what's right and what's wrong.

          If anything, the subjection to vio
          • That's not quite what I meant - I was talking more about movies and video games that depict killing and violence as the norm, not like in a horror film where, yes, there's lots of killing and violence and what not, but it's meant more to scare you.

            In other words, yeah, Jason killed people, but Neo made it look like it was cool to do. "Friday the 13th" sends the message that Jason killed all these people, it was gross, it was a bad thing, everyone hated him for it, and he must've been pretty mental to do

            • Young kids may be more impressionable, but that means they are more impressionable to both the good and the bad things in society. This is where it is the parents responsibility to instill proper morals in their children.

              When I was a kid, me and my friends used to play guns. We would take our little plastic rifles and pistols, then we would go out and shoot each other. Whenever we got shot we would pretend to be dead, and it was a lot of fun. We made it "cool" to go around shooting people. How
              • While you argued the specifics quite well, you still missed my overall point.

                Even if it's an action flick it's o.k. for a child to watch violent media.

                The reasoning is if your parent can teach you the difference between 'senseless' violence and 'meaningful' violence, you're o.k. (e.g. There's no such thing as 'meaningful' violence unless you're defending yourself.) This goes along with the child poster to your argument who puts the responsibility on the parent.

                I suppose you could simplify it by saying:

                A. Ba
                • I fully agree - the parents play a crucial role in a child's development. And that they play more of a role than the media, or anyone/thing else.

                  However, since (I think) most (or, at least, a great deal) of this development happens between the ages of 2 and 6 (past that, most kids can distinguish right from wrong), your list is flawed. It should look more like this:

                  A. Parents B. Siblings C. Other relatives D. Friends E. Peers F. Media

                  Here's why: the child probably isn't in school yet (if he is, it's

                • No, I didn't miss your overall point. Perhaps it was because of the formatting of the page, but my reply was to NetRaven.

                  He brought up the point that in Friday the 13th, killing was made to look bad because Jason was gross and evil. In The Matrix, killing was thought to be cool because of Neo.

                  I was just saying that it doesn't matter how the violent media is displayed. A parent who is involved in their child's life is more than capable of cancelling out or as you already said enhancing the effects of

    • Re:Sad... (Score:2, Funny)

      by FLEB ( 312391 )
      So, in the opinion of the show, what are the good/bad ways to influence a child from 2 to 6?

  • norman, please coordinate... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Khyron ( 8855 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @09:59PM (#13291517)
    ...but, the games, if they did not cause this then games might not be dangerous to children but then the government would be wrong in spending millions of tax dollars on needless investigations and... ...it's like, if the gun manufacturers are not to blame for gun crimes but grokster is to blame for p2p crimes and videogame companies are to blame *twitch* not to blame *twitch* to blame for....

    ILLOGICAL! ILLOGICAL! THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE!
    • in other words those in power are not logical. and thats not news
    • I don't think that Grokster is to blame for P2P crimes, but I think the reason they got sued is that stealing music and movies is sorta the main purpose of Grokster.

      In other words, Grokster got sued and gun makers didn't because you can't pirate movies and music without programs like Grokster and with these programs you can't do much other than pirate copyrighted material - but you can kill people without a gun and guns aren't just used for killing, they're also used for protection and for hunting.

      • To the contrary, gun manufacturers have and are being sued, and with even less reason. And you most certainly can copy movies and music without programs like Grokster. Devices such as the "VCR" and the "tape recorder" have been used in this manner for decades.
        • Well, yes, gun manufacturers have been/are being sued - and with less and less reason - but not until very recently. And, yes, you can copy movies and music without file-sharing programs, but, first of all, just making a copy isn't necessarily illegal or considered piracy, and, second of all, even though copying movies and music and giving the copies to your friends is illegal, it's done on such a small scale that people don't get in trouble for it. Lastly, you totally missed my point which was that the ma
  • ...the defense used when a gang of young teenagers went around killing people in defence of their own beliefs. Oh wow. And I bet half of you believed me.
    • well i think its time to apply the ESRB rating to the bible. what rating do you think it should get?
      • As a Christian? Probably the ESRB equivalent of MPAA's R. Let's face it, the book of Judges is pretty bloody at times, for starters. (And no, I will NOT engage in arguments.)
        • Is there any consensual sex or nudity in the bible? If so, even if those pages are glued together and require a third party glue remover to read them then you must give the bible an AO rating.
          • It doesn't get much more explicit than something like "they knew each other", unless you count Song of Solomon - and as I understand it, there are some distros I mean... jeez, my Linux roots are showing. =^^=

            Anyway, there are some translations that apparently omit SoS due to the fact that it comes off as a bit racy, so if you rate that, you'd wind up AOing that particular book. But then, if we go by ESRB rules, then yeah, just the "they knew each other" bits alone garner the AO rating for the collection.

        • I think 'R' would be too tame a rating for the OT. In order to properly rate it, you'd have to go ahead and revamp the entire rating system, then set a rating where only people over 600 were allowed to read it.

          • Well, all we know about Methuselah is that he was "with God". But, there's a theory that he's still around. So at this point we have one possible qualified person, but by now due to immortality he's probably insane.
      • Let's see. Incest (sup Adam and Eve's kids), drug use, stonings, genocides.

        AO.
    • The difference is that GTA:SA never purported to be "the truth", nor a doctrine to the way one should live. GTA:SA just depicts violence, the bible (or the koran or most religious texts) tells you to do it.

  • "I would've gotten away with it too" (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Can you imagine if the Scooby Doo gang captured a villain dressed up as... O..... Donkey Kong, and he announced "I would've never, EVER, thrown barrels at my Plumber, but the Video game made me do it. Seriously. O, and I would've gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids."

  • I'd say (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RealmRPGer ( 889362 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @10:16PM (#13291595)
    It's about time our legal system personnel began to smarten up.

  • His mistake (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TykeClone ( 668449 ) * <TykeClone@gmail.com> on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @10:17PM (#13291604) Homepage Journal
    was to try to use that defense in Alabama instead of California.
    • was to try to use that defense in Alabama instead of California.

      Replace Alabama with "ex-Confederate States" and it would be a bit more accurate. We could probably expand this past California too, but not sure what wording to use.

  • After RTFA... (Score:2, Interesting)

    by LuckyPossum ( 900219 )
    This is not that great of news. There is still room for stupidity: The victims' families have filed a civil suit against the video game manufacturer and two stores, claiming Moore killed the three after repeatedly playing "Grand Theft Auto III" and "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City." No trial date has been set in the civil lawsuit. Then if this succeeds maybe they'll overturn the conviction and put him in a mental health facility. I'm sure the victims' families would love that.
    • And this is why we need game manufacturers that have the balls to countersue for libel, extortion, and fraud. I can only hope...

      • Re:After RTFA... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Caiwyn ( 120510 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @11:01PM (#13291806)
        There is a chain of grocery stores native to my home state which does this... years ago, in the sue-crazy early 90s, there was a rash of incidents in which folks were going into various grocery stores, pulling items from high shelves down on top of them, and suing for damages. Though the cases almost never went to court, there was usually a hefty settlement involved.

        My local chain decided they would have none of this, and vowed to fight any such case brought against them in court. The frivolous lawsuits were curtailed pretty quickly, because the lawyers-for-hire figured out that this was no longer an easy way to make a quick buck.

        Most businesses who have a lawsuit brought against them choose to settle because it is cheaper than fighting it out in court. Only the truly smart companies realize that this behavior just invites new lawsuits. Just look at what happened to mp3.com.

    • Re:After RTFA... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Kurayamino-X ( 557754 )
      I was about to point this out myself.

      I know I should feel sorry for these people as thier loved ones got shot and all, but all I can really feel at the moment is the urge to beat the everlasting shit out of them with a cluestick.

      these stupid motherfuckers are doing more then just validating the killers defence, they're spitting on thier loved ones graves and cheapening thier memory in the process by using thier deaths as an excuse to grab some money.
    • Maybe the game companies should start to sue stores and parents for providing underage people with these games that cause them to do bad things... If I give my child a gun and he uses it to kill someone, do I get to file a civil lawsuit against the gun maker and the place I purchased it? Of course I do, because guns (and games) are evil. Maybe I should be the one in trouble for giveing him the gun in the first place. RIP personal responsablity (and spelling ability for me)
    • So are they going to sue MacDonalds as well - it's rumoured he had a bigmac the day before.
      • Nah, it would have been from the trans-fat in the fries.

        He learned that he stood a chance of getting cancer from the trans-fat and he went on a killing spree because, well, he could potentially die soon any way.

  • How about this (Score:5, Funny)

    by Kraeloc ( 869412 ) <kburninator@prot ... .com minus punct> on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @10:25PM (#13291637)
    I'm going to make a game that ends in the player killing themself, hype it up a whole lot, and let the problem solve itself.
  • Can someone please tell me what happened back in the time? It seems that in this new millennium of ours, we're more and more dependent. Let me show you what I mean:

    Today, we always try to sue people. Sue, sue and sue. Sue McDonalds for selling food that's not good for you, suing some salesman because you were too ignorant to see that it was some kind of fraud and now you want to sue the video game makers? P-l-e-a-se!

    I think that people are intelligent enough to make their own decisions. Kids should learn ho

  • The victim's families... (Score:4, Informative)

    by biodeo ( 741781 ) on Wednesday August 10, 2005 @11:35PM (#13291937)
    "The victim's families have filed a civil suit against the video game manufacturer and two stores, claiming Moore killed the three after repeatedly playing "Grand Theft Auto III" and "Grand Theft Auto: Vice City." No trial date has been set in the civil lawsuit"

    Wow... just wow...

    Does anyone else see the terrible, terrible irony here? If they held their logic true, they should be protesting the guilty verdict, since it obviously wasn't his fault, the video games did it. The article mentioned them hugging the prosecutor, so they were obviously pleased.

    I hope they don't get one red cent.
  • Max Payne DID make me buy Max Payne II. Unbeknownst to me at the time, that MP II actually originated-in-my-butt and then made its way to retail stores shelves. The desire to once again dodge bullets in slow-mo while ripping my enemies to shreds with my own thrall of bullets was just too tempting. I was, your honor, drunk with the idea of being as badass as the Max of Payne himself. I could not resist the sequel, and it has since found its way into a pond.

    My friends ask "why not burn the game, make i
  • I'm glad the jury was able to see through this bullshit defense pretty quickly (one hour deliberation is fast for most juries, especially in criminal court), and I only hope this follows through with the suits being filed by the family against the company and retail outlets. All the attention on violence caused by video games is actually part of what is promoting all the violence that mimics videogames. Clearly unbalanced youngsters see all the attention it gets, and that there is a whole army of people out
  • Finally! I hope this serves as an initiative for all attorneys to denegate cases such as this (and best of all IT REALLY IS) aaah! sigh of relief. Im really happy we reached this point before someone went all the way to ban "M" rated games in America (dont laugh! it DID happened to the American comic industry during the 50-60's, where did you think the ultra silly TV Batman series came from?) For all those Non believers, Millions of people (some of them real young unfortunately) watch, read or play violen
  • Im glad my son is about to born in a world where a murderer CANT shoot someone in the head and come out of jail free because he blames it on a game or a movie, plus getting a few million bucks from a company as an extra bonus.

    A really good day. Good job judge.
  • paradoxically, while the video game defense was partly blocked by the judge, the victim's families are sueing the game manufacturer. so when you want to convict the guy, video games didn't make him do it, but when you want to get money out of the game company, video games did make him do it. that's our legal system for ya!

Slashdot Top Deals

"The following is not for the weak of heart or Fundamentalists." -- Dave Barry

Close