Grand Theft Auto Murder Defense

CheapyMom

CheapyMom

CAGiversary!
The CBS program 60 minutes is going to air a segment tonight on a murder case where the accused is claiming that he was influenced by GTA and that led him kill (I think) a couple of cops. It might make good watching....
 
I was influenced by GTA when I did all those "Ambulance" missions last weekend. CBS should be calling me any second..... maybe I'll record this show - it does sound interesting if nothing else but a laugh or two... :p
 
Just for the record, now that I've seen the segment, I see that I was wrong in that the case is a law suit brought by the family of one of the victims. However, the issue is still the same. Do violent games lead to violence and should the industry and retailers be held accountable.

I don't know. What do you think?
 
They're suing the game company since the murderer is most likely judgment-proof and suing a company with a bestselling videogame = deep pockets = moola if their gamble pays off even if the case is weaker than trying to get money from the murderer.
 
I agree with the second lawyer who reps video game companies...

If you can sue video game companies for acts that their users commit, why stop there?
Books, movies, paintings, tv shows, would be fair game.
 
The suit does seem a bit lame and I agree with you, Cheapy, why stop with games. That being said , something about violence as entertainment or art makes me really queasy. Even if I don't think the industry should be held liable, I feel nothing good can come from desensitizing ourselves to violence but possibly a lot of bad.

Sorry Cheapy and everyone but it would be fine with me if there were no realistic, violent movies or games.

I think everyone should just play beautiful games like Katamari and Ico. :roll:
 
Personally, I dont think children should be playing GTA but at the same time, I dont think (videogame) companies should be held liable for the murders.
 
[quote name='CheapyD']I agree with the second lawyer who reps video game companies...

If you can sue video game companies for acts that their users commit, why stop there?
Books, movies, paintings, tv shows, would be fair game.[/quote]

the biggest difference is that videogames are interactive. the violence does not HAVE to happen (technically speaking, of course). hmmmmm.
 
These attempts to cast the blame for someone's violent act on somone/something else is moronic. By that logic we will have to punish pencil companies if someone gets killed with a pencil.

These types of frivolous lawsuits are only about
- trying to cash in
- trying to find an excuse to not go to jail
- trying to further a political agenda against violence in media
- not accepting that a person is responsible for their own actions
 
Now I remember about this segment on 60 Minutes. I was so hoping to catch it yesterday but I got bogged down in homework. I've seen a small portion of it (it was aired as a teaser on some show) and I don't believe that they have any right to sue the Video Game companies. If they can sue and say that the Video Game companies are to blame then why not the t.v., movie, the news, etc.

It's basically like Cheapy and Scrubking said.
 
[quote name='Scrubking']These attempts to cast the blame for someone's violent act on somone/something else is moronic. By that logic we will have to punish pencil companies if someone gets killed with a pencil.

These types of frivolous lawsuits are only about
- trying to cash in
- trying to find an excuse to not go to jail
- trying to further a political agenda against violence in media
- not accepting that a person is responsible for their own actions[/quote]

totally agree. people are so greedy in today's society that they will do anything for an extra buck. people are also less responsible and do not want to face the consequence of their action; instead, blame on something/someone else. example would be the michael jackson trial. to me, michael jackson is a freak for quite some time now and for the mom to leave her children there with them is outrageous. why would you want to put your children at risk unless you have a plan to get some cash for it? i also blame the parents for letting their kids do whatever they want, good or bad. i remember i was exposed to a lot of violent media when i was a kid. my parents never object me watching any R rated movies but i've turned out to be not violent at all :D . just my 2 cents
 
Personally, what pisses me off is that video games is always the reason people claim why some kid killed someone. It's never the fact that they had no parents, or were abused or beaten, or were criminally insane, it's the games that caused them to do it. :roll:
 
I had Donkey Kong Jr Math on the NES, and I ended up at an Engineering school and went through Calc 5. Coincidence? I think not!

Video games are the devil!
 
[quote name='dude2003'][quote name='Scrubking']These attempts to cast the blame for someone's violent act on somone/something else is moronic. By that logic we will have to punish pencil companies if someone gets killed with a pencil.

These types of frivolous lawsuits are only about
- trying to cash in
- trying to find an excuse to not go to jail
- trying to further a political agenda against violence in media
- not accepting that a person is responsible for their own actions[/quote]

totally agree. people are so greedy in today's society that they will do anything for an extra buck. people are also less responsible and do not want to face the consequence of their action; instead, blame on something/someone else. example would be the michael jackson trial. to me, michael jackson is a freak for quite some time now and for the mom to leave her children there with them is outrageous. why would you want to put your children at risk unless you have a plan to get some cash for it? i also blame the parents for letting their kids do whatever they want, good or bad. i remember i was exposed to a lot of violent media when i was a kid. my parents never object me watching any R rated movies but i've turned out to be not violent at all :D . just my 2 cents[/quote]

cudnt agree more...the sad thing is..that it's so easy to point a finger, i caught a bit of this and it was pretty interesting..unfortunatly i was at a restaurant also..and they had this on :D...but seriously, this kinda thing just gets me upset seeing how ppl cannot accept any responsibilities...
at least this one was a bit more logical than the fat kids suing mcdonalds :\
 
If you have a kid that is that unstable, guess what.... the video game didn't do it. The parents raise the kids, not the TV. I grew up watching hunter and the equalizer, you dont see me becoming a vigilante (although it would be cool).......why because my parents taught me it was entertainment.
 
[quote name='CheapyMom']Just for the record, now that I've seen the segment, I see that I was wrong in that the case is a law suit brought by the family of one of the victims. However, the issue is still the same. Do violent games lead to violence and should the industry and retailers be held accountable.

I don't know. What do you think?[/quote]

I think if you are of age and carded at purchase or are just to old to be carded or confused to be 16 you should be able to buy the game, and why should the industry/retailers be held accountable for what you do with it after you leave. If I go buy a gun today and have to wait 72 or 48 hours to get it and then I get it and go kill people, is that the vendor's fault? No, so, why now? I work as a server in the food industry and when I serve drinks I can be held accountable (as well as my bartender) if that person left the building and got in an accident and injurded people or killed them (jail time and/or fines). I think this it is pretty crappy that everyone has to blame someone for something this stupid that he went and did. Also, hasn't he seen Scarface or any other ganster movie? Same concept, they kill a bunch of people, so why not me too?
 
I guess we all need to save our money for the next GTA release. Rockstar's court costs will be covered by GTA 5's $75 sticker price.
 
[quote name='gaelan']I guess we all need to save our money for the next GTA release. Rockstar's court costs will be covered by GTA 5's $75 sticker price.[/quote]

San Andreas was the 5th one in the series :).

EDIT: Doh. I only played GTA3, Vice City, and SA. I guess I missed one somewhere.
 
[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='gaelan']I guess we all need to save our money for the next GTA release. Rockstar's court costs will be covered by GTA 5's $75 sticker price.[/quote]

San Andreas was the 5th one in the series :).[/quote]

Well, technically it's the 6th game in the series. Nice try, don't cry small fry. :D
 
I, quite personally, am tired of being asked to show I.D. to buy a game and then being refused because I'm 14. My parents are quite tired of having to walk into stores with me to get the game I want. Just because someone's not stable in the head means I can't play the games I want? I've been trying to get Deus Ex: Invisible War for close to two years now, but no one's ever around when I can get a hold of it. I actually prefer the shopping on-line, though. EB only asks if you're 17 or up on their site. All my dad's gotta do is click yes and I'm clean.
 
[quote name='False Hope']I, quite personally, am tired of being asked to show I.D. to buy a game and then being refused because I'm 14. My parents are quite tired of having to walk into stores with me to get the game I want. Just because someone's not stable in the head means I can't play the games I want? I've been trying to get Deus Ex: Invisible War for close to two years now, but no one's ever around when I can get a hold of it. I actually prefer the shopping on-line, though. EB only asks if you're 17 or up on their site. All my dad's gotta do is click yes and I'm clean.[/quote]

I feel your pain. Heck, when before I was 17, I couldn't see an R rated movie because my parents said no (though, I could get any video game I wanted). What you'll notice as you get older is, though you were responsible for the most part (most people do something in your age range they aren't too proud of) there are so many people in your age bracket that aren't responsible. You really don't see it until later in life. So, it's a hassle, but before you know it, you'll be out in the working world, and be able to get what you want. It's better to have age restrictions now than to have to make everygame the equivelent of Teen or below.
 
[quote name='False Hope']I, quite personally, am tired of being asked to show I.D. to buy a game and then being refused because I'm 14. My parents are quite tired of having to walk into stores with me to get the game I want. Just because someone's not stable in the head means I can't play the games I want? I've been trying to get Deus Ex: Invisible War for close to two years now, but no one's ever around when I can get a hold of it. I actually prefer the shopping on-line, though. EB only asks if you're 17 or up on their site. All my dad's gotta do is click yes and I'm clean.[/quote]

You're 14 and too young to be playing M-rated games and watching R-rated movies - stable head or not. There's tons and tons and tons of great T-rated (and below) games out there that could suck away every ounce of your free time - go play those.
 
[quote name='False Hope']I, quite personally, am tired of being asked to show I.D. to buy a game and then being refused because I'm 14. My parents are quite tired of having to walk into stores with me to get the game I want. Just because someone's not stable in the head means I can't play the games I want? I've been trying to get Deus Ex: Invisible War for close to two years now, but no one's ever around when I can get a hold of it. I actually prefer the shopping on-line, though. EB only asks if you're 17 or up on their site. All my dad's gotta do is click yes and I'm clean.[/quote]

And that my friends, is the logic of a 14 year old. I've got so much to comment on here but I think this poster is a good example why people SHOULD be carded for games.
 
I think it's great that there is video game ratings on games now. Children need to understand that it sucks to be under the age of 21- and this is a new way to do it.

Plus- just think- it gives you something to look forward to when you turn 18- that and you can go die in Iraq.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='False Hope']I, quite personally, am tired of being asked to show I.D. to buy a game and then being refused because I'm 14. My parents are quite tired of having to walk into stores with me to get the game I want. Just because someone's not stable in the head means I can't play the games I want? I've been trying to get Deus Ex: Invisible War for close to two years now, but no one's ever around when I can get a hold of it. I actually prefer the shopping on-line, though. EB only asks if you're 17 or up on their site. All my dad's gotta do is click yes and I'm clean.[/quote]

You're 14 and too young to be playing M-rated games and watching R-rated movies - stable head or not. There's tons and tons and tons of great T-rated (and below) games out there that could suck away every ounce of your free time - go play those.[/quote]

To each his own, but what if I decide to get Gran Turismo, then I decide to steal my parent's car and drive as fast as I can? You're not going to stop people from making those kinds of excuses just because you ban the M-rated games. I could probably do that and sue anyone involved with Gran Turismo and win. Or how about I play Pokemon and attempt to stuff local wildlife in plastic balls? Fantastic, no?
 
[quote name='lordxixor101'][quote name='False Hope']I, quite personally, am tired of being asked to show I.D. to buy a game and then being refused because I'm 14. My parents are quite tired of having to walk into stores with me to get the game I want. Just because someone's not stable in the head means I can't play the games I want? I've been trying to get Deus Ex: Invisible War for close to two years now, but no one's ever around when I can get a hold of it. I actually prefer the shopping on-line, though. EB only asks if you're 17 or up on their site. All my dad's gotta do is click yes and I'm clean.[/quote]

I feel your pain. Heck, when before I was 17, I couldn't see an R rated movie because my parents said no (though, I could get any video game I wanted). What you'll notice as you get older is, though you were responsible for the most part (most people do something in your age range they aren't too proud of) there are so many people in your age bracket that aren't responsible. You really don't see it until later in life. So, it's a hassle, but before you know it, you'll be out in the working world, and be able to get what you want. It's better to have age restrictions now than to have to make everygame the equivelent of Teen or below.[/quote]


I thank you for your empathy. My friends and I are very tired of being treated like we're absolutely ignorant. We are able to tell the difference between a pixelated decapitation and a real one. Like I've said before: Show a child a dead body in a game and a real dead body. Ask him to tell you the difference.

As for R-rated movies.... you had it a little tougher than me, I suppose. I'm able to see whatever movies, and get whatever games, but I'm tired of having to get my parents to give permission to the clerk for me to get a game. It's by making these games unable to be bought casually that they appear more attractive to kids.
 
[quote name='False Hope'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='False Hope']I, quite personally, am tired of being asked to show I.D. to buy a game and then being refused because I'm 14. My parents are quite tired of having to walk into stores with me to get the game I want. Just because someone's not stable in the head means I can't play the games I want? I've been trying to get Deus Ex: Invisible War for close to two years now, but no one's ever around when I can get a hold of it. I actually prefer the shopping on-line, though. EB only asks if you're 17 or up on their site. All my dad's gotta do is click yes and I'm clean.[/quote]

You're 14 and too young to be playing M-rated games and watching R-rated movies - stable head or not. There's tons and tons and tons of great T-rated (and below) games out there that could suck away every ounce of your free time - go play those.[/quote]

To each his own, but what if I decide to get Gran Turismo, then I decide to steal my parent's car and drive as fast as I can? You're not going to stop people from making those kinds of excuses just because you ban the M-rated games. I could probably do that and sue anyone involved with Gran Turismo and win. Or how about I play Pokemon and attempt to stuff local wildlife in plastic balls? Fantastic, no?[/quote]

I don't want to ban M-rated games. I just don't want 14 year olds playing them. There are certain 14 year olds out there who ruin it for everyone else. I don't think all 14 year olds will go on a killing spree after playing GTA and I don't think all people over 17 won't go on a killing spree after playing GTA. I think you have to draw the line somewhere though and 17 seems like a good age to me. Have some faith - the people making the rules have all been 14 at one point in time and remember what it was like. The chosen age of 17 may be arbitrary but the rule behind it is not.
 
[quote name='Backlash'][quote name='gaelan']I guess we all need to save our money for the next GTA release. Rockstar's court costs will be covered by GTA 5's $75 sticker price.[/quote]

San Andreas was the 5th one in the series :).

EDIT: Doh. I only played GTA3, Vice City, and SA. I guess I missed one somewhere.[/quote]
GTA
GTA2
GTA London
GTA3
GTA VC
GTA SA

6
As for being OT...
I've written so many papers about this that over my research, I've found my own opinion shifting. At first I thought it was stupid to think videogames could make a person do something. However, repetition is how humans learn. Babies learn to walk by falling down a lot. They learn to talk by babbling a lot. Any small child raised in a violent environment would most likely grow up to be violent. It may very well be that playing violent game can make children violent, yet that quickly becomes irrelevant when you consider that it is the parents duty to differentiate between right and wrong for the child. It doesn't matter if it has any effect or not, the parent should be mediating what the child experiences.
 
[quote name='javeryh'][quote name='False Hope'][quote name='javeryh'][quote name='False Hope']I, quite personally, am tired of being asked to show I.D. to buy a game and then being refused because I'm 14. My parents are quite tired of having to walk into stores with me to get the game I want. Just because someone's not stable in the head means I can't play the games I want? I've been trying to get Deus Ex: Invisible War for close to two years now, but no one's ever around when I can get a hold of it. I actually prefer the shopping on-line, though. EB only asks if you're 17 or up on their site. All my dad's gotta do is click yes and I'm clean.[/quote]

You're 14 and too young to be playing M-rated games and watching R-rated movies - stable head or not. There's tons and tons and tons of great T-rated (and below) games out there that could suck away every ounce of your free time - go play those.[/quote]

To each his own, but what if I decide to get Gran Turismo, then I decide to steal my parent's car and drive as fast as I can? You're not going to stop people from making those kinds of excuses just because you ban the M-rated games. I could probably do that and sue anyone involved with Gran Turismo and win. Or how about I play Pokemon and attempt to stuff local wildlife in plastic balls? Fantastic, no?[/quote]

I don't want to ban M-rated games. I just don't want 14 year olds playing them. There are certain 14 year olds out there who ruin it for everyone else. I don't think all 14 year olds will go on a killing spree after playing GTA and I don't think all people over 17 won't go on a killing spree after playing GTA. I think you have to draw the line somewhere though and 17 seems like a good age to me. Have some faith - the people making the rules have all been 14 at one point in time and remember what it was like. The chosen age of 17 may be arbitrary but the rule behind it is not.[/quote]

I respect your opinion, but I must argue that one can not simply label a person mentally capable of handling the content of such games at 17. It's like driving; Turning 15 doesn't necessarily mean you're able to take the mental/physical stress of driving. It varies for many people. The same goes for drinking (alcoholic beverages). Turning 21 doesn't necessarily mean one's body is capable of handling alcohol like it should. In fact, wouldn't you agree that most people who turn 21 are more likely to go out and get a drink? Because it's been forbidden for so long most people end up abusing it. (That's actually a rather bad choice of scenario because you would need some kind of restriction, otherwise we'd have drunken 12 year olds committing crimes, versus sober 12 year olds committing crimes.) Either way, why am I able to go to my local Wal-Mart and purchase a movie with swearing, blood, nudity, etc. that's rated R, versus buying a game like Onimusha with an insignificant amount of blood? So watching people blow heads off other live people is better than slaying demons in a pixilated world?
 
False Hope, I don't think its a question of whether or not you are mature enough to play M rated games or watch R rated movies, I'm sure you are. But the rating system is put into place more for your parents sake than your own. I always saw it as a way to ensure that parents knew what their kids were playing. While your parents might not have a problem with it others do.
 
I guess you guys are all too young to remember in the 80's when metal band Judas Priest was put on trial because prosecutors were trying to say that a couple of dumb white-trash kids killed themselves after listeing to "Subliminal messages" on an older Priest album. (yawn)

The only "subliminal" messages I ever heard were on a Weird Al album and they were put there on purpose :)

The scary thing was that the trial went through, they were aquitted of course, but still. Or when parents tried to sue Mike Judge because their dumb kid burned down the house after watching Beevis and Butthead.

Hopefully Rockstar counter-sues the parents for bringing the lawsuit in the first place.
 
Yes, age does not necessarily reflect mental capabability, however what does? I doubt people would buy as many games/ go to movies if they were subject to a battery of psychological testing to determine their mental state. Of course that's not realistic at all, so the most practical method is instituted. People in general always think they are smarter and more capable than they actually are, especially during the teenage years. Even if a person were to deem themselves responsible, the truth might be the complete opposite.

What you are overlooking is that the ability to buy video games, drive as well as drinking (hopefully not at the same time :? ) is a privilege and not a right. That is an important distinction... which may be blurred somehow by inept Wal-Mart cashiers.

[quote name='False Hope']

I respect your opinion, but I must argue that one can not simply label a person mentally capable of handling the content of such games at 17. It's like driving; Turning 15 doesn't necessarily mean you're able to take the mental/physical stress of driving. It varies for many people. The same goes for drinking (alcoholic beverages). Turning 21 doesn't necessarily mean one's body is capable of handling alcohol like it should. In fact, wouldn't you agree that most people who turn 21 are more likely to go out and get a drink? Because it's been forbidden for so long most people end up abusing it. (That's actually a rather bad choice of scenario because you would need some kind of restriction, otherwise we'd have drunken 12 year olds committing crimes, versus sober 12 year olds committing crimes.) Either way, why am I able to go to my local Wal-Mart and purchase a movie with swearing, blood, nudity, etc. that's rated R, versus buying a game like Onimusha with an insignificant amount of blood? So watching people blow heads off other live people is better than slaying demons in a pixilated world?[/quote]
 
[quote name='HeadRusch']I guess you guys are all too young to remember in the 80's when metal band Judas Priest was put on trial because prosecutors were trying to say that a couple of dumb white-trash kids killed themselves after listeing to "Subliminal messages" on an older Priest album. (yawn)

The only "subliminal" messages I ever heard were on a Weird Al album and they were put there on purpose :)

The scary thing was that the trial went through, they were aquitted of course, but still. Or when parents tried to sue Mike Judge because their dumb kid burned down the house after watching Beevis and Butthead.

Hopefully Rockstar counter-sues the parents for bringing the lawsuit in the first place.[/quote]

I remember that, it kept saying "Do it. Do it. Do it"

Goto : http://www3.telus.net/jefmil/stairwaybackwards.htm

That shit is great.
 
There was a similar case against Ozzy Osbourme. A senator (I think?) claimed that it caused a suicide by saying "Shoot. Shoot. Shoot" or something like that.
 
[quote name='magilacudy']People in general always think they are smarter and more capable than they actually are, especially during the teenage years. [/quote]

Bingo.

[quote name='False Hope']Either way, why am I able to go to my local Wal-Mart and purchase a movie with swearing, blood, nudity, etc. that's rated R, versus buying a game like Onimusha with an insignificant amount of blood? [/quote]

You shouldn't be allowed to do that either if Wal-Mart enforced the rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top