Gta Kills Again!!!

humanji

I seems yet another frivolous lawsuit has been filed against Take-Two, the parent company of Rockstar, because another teenage american psycho killed three cops.

Devin Thompson, 18, is accused of the slayings, which occurred after he was arrested in 2003 for suspicion of the crime of grand theft auto. According to the Associated Press, when he was caught, Thompson said, "Life is a video game. You've got to die sometime." While being booked at the station, he allegedly grabbed a police officer's pistol and then shot its owner and two other officers in the head--all three died. Thompson is then said to have driven off in a stolen police car, but was later apprehended. He is currently being charged with three counts of first-degree murder, and is set to go to trial on July 11.

Two of the victims' next-of-kin have filed a lawsuit accusing the two GTA games as having "trained and motivated" Thompson to commit his crimes. Besides Take-Two, the other defendants named in the near-60-page, $600 million suit are Wal-Mart and GameStop, where Thompson is said to have bought both M-rated games while under the ESRB-mandated 17-year-old purchase age. Sony Computer Entertainment America, makers of Thompson's PlayStation 2 console, is also named in the legal filing.

From: Gamespot.com

The article goes on to say that the plaintiff's attorney is Jack Thompson, the Guy who campaigned agains Ice-T's "Cop Killer" song as well as other attempts to sue Take-Two.

Is anyone else sick to death of some Americans inability to comprehend that there are people out there who are just nuts? Why do they feel the need to find something/someone else to blame for influencing their "innocent youth"? I love watching Columbo, but I don't go around solving crimes in a dirty mac!

smiaras

This post has been deleted.

Winters

"trained and motivated"

Ah yes. Because driving in real life is exactly the same as driving in a game.

ambro25

Winters wrote:

"trained and motivated"

Ah yes. Because driving in real life is exactly the same as driving in a game.

You can apply that to pistol shooting as well, mate.

seamus

It sounds like GTA was inspiration, sure, but that doesn't make it responsible. Clearly he's a ****ed up little boy, who would have committed a similar crime anyway.

skywalker

i think it was in scream it was said "movies dont create killers, they just make killers more creative."

Mimikyu

This post has been deleted.

ionapaul

Well, wasn't it in the UK that the parents blamed Manhunt for murder? We are almost as ligitous as the Americans - don't think they have some monopoly of stupidity! The average Irish citizen is as stupid as the average American anyday, and if we had 300+ million living on this island, we'd see the exact same lawsuits...

MickFarr

ionapaul wrote:

Well, wasn't it in the UK that the parents blamed Manhunt for murder? We are almost as ligitous as the Americans - don't think they have some monopoly of stupidity! The average Irish citizen is as stupid as the average American anyday, and if we had 300+ million living on this island, we'd see the exact same lawsuits...

only more!

bizmark

God not again :rolleyes:

Tusky

Do you think there is any chance they could win the case and GTA games could be banned ? Unlikely yes but a scary thought none the less, ****ing Americans.

grimloch

Tusky wrote:

Do you think there is any chance they could win the case and GTA games could be banned ? Unlikely yes but a scary thought none the less, ****ing Americans.

i highly doubt GTA games will be banned, at least i hope to god they dont get banned

ambro25

Very marginal chance some first-instance US judge may rule against the publisher/developer, but it'll in all probability be overturned in Appeal.
Just another case of nefarious and self-serving politicking by uneducated and opportunistic plebes.

Maybe the US vg industry association should tone down the softly-softly PR approach and now just go for the jugular with such politicians/individuals, dish the dirt presidential election-stylee... it'd be a much more efficient use of such an association's resources, as those would think twice before jumping on the bandwagon

Balfa

Gamespot.com wrote:

he allegedly grabbed a police officer's pistol and then shot its owner and two other officers in the head .... accusing the two GTA games as having "trained and motivated"

Man! I tried that exact same thing, but i couldn't find the damn right analogue stick to aim my shots! what's up with that?? I found the trigger alright, i THINK it was R1, but it just kept shooting down at the floor. Can anyone suggest a better PS2 controller cos the Colt Model M su><0r!

Headshot

america is the lands of guns a nation controlled by the media and people try to blame games instead of blaming the parents who buy the games for their children

rabbitinlights

I wonder what star rating he got? 3 cops....... id say thats about 4 stars...........

radiospan

rabbitinlights wrote:

I wonder what star rating he got? 3 cops....... id say thats about 4 stars...........

d22ontour

People were commiting murders such as the one above years before games of any kind came out i wonder what the blame was put on.The same crap was spouted after the columbine massacre and probably will continue when such things happen again.Civilisation is the problem (no not the game) and americas lack of gun control doesn't help them ,but its their right to own guns maybe they should look at that 1st before they blame anything else.

grimloch

d22ontour wrote:

americas lack of gun control doesn't help them ,but its their right to own guns maybe they should look at that 1st before they blame anything else.

Canada also have similar gun laws but they have very few murders in comparison to America

garthv

Another case of a mother blaming everybody else except their son.....

Thorbar

Personally I'm not going to be so quick to jump on the band wagon and say these people are "stupid" for suing Take Two interactive. First of all why is everyone so sure that GTA had nothing to do with this kid flipping out? Only arguement I saw put forward above was that these kinds of murders happened before games were around but I'm not sure if that's true, have any examples that back this up?

I'm not saying I agree that GTA trained and motivated this kid, I'd have to know a lot more about his personal situation and probably be a lot smarter to make an accurate decision on that. Personally I'd be crushed if GTA got banned as I've played all the games and loved em, but I still wouldn't let me little nephew any where near them just as I wouldn't expose him to alcohol or hardcore porn.

I think as games become more and more realistic they should be treated the same as violent movies. Its the responsibility of developers and anyone else who makes money of these games to make sure they don't get into underage hands but unfortunately if it wasn't for law suits like this then they'll just keep on making their millions.

kinkstr

Canadians actually own more guns per household than americans afaik

seamus

Thorbar wrote:

I think as games become more and more realistic they should be treated the same as violent movies. Its the responsibility of developers and anyone else who makes money of these games to make sure they don't get into underage hands but unfortunately if it wasn't for law suits like this then they'll just keep on making their millions.

How are the developers supposed to ensure it doesn't get into underage hands? That's like suing the director when a 12 year old sees a 15's movie. Sure Wal-Mart and whoever else sold it, have failed in a duty of care, but that's minimal. His parents can't have not seen him playing them, where were they? Why not sue them for allowing him to play the game? Oh wait, because they don't have hundreds of millions of dollars. :rolleyes:

The very fact that a person cannot separate reality from a video game proves conclusively that there's more here than "Oh wow, that looks like fun!". Even young childen know the difference between make-believe pretending you're a policeman, and actually being a policeman.

Thorbar

If developers make millions of dollars off a product I think they have a moral and ethical responsibility to make sure it doesn't fall into the right hands. Same way I think gun companies should be sued if they call into the wrong hands. Developers should only supply their games to stores that have strict overage policies and should pay for education campagnes which tell parents its not ok to buy little Johnny doom 3.

If kids are so good are separating make-believe and reality why do we have restrictions on porn, alcohol and so on?

seamus

Thorbar wrote:

Developers should only supply their games to stores that have strict overage policies and should pay for education campagnes which tell parents its not ok to buy little Johnny doom 3.

I'm sure all stores have strict overage policies. All it takes though is one apathetic cashier (and there are plenty of them) and anyone can get their hands on them.

If kids are so good are separating make-believe and reality why do we have restrictions on porn, alcohol and so on?

For totally different reasons. Adults can barely control their alcohol intake. Imagine if we had alcohol for free sale to all children. 6 cans of budweiser and 12-year-old Jimmy dies in a gutter from alcohol poisoning. Porn, well that's a multi-pronged thing. In this country, are laws are based mainly on religious concerns. By and large, it's the parental lobby which keep the control on porn in other countries. Anyone who wants porn either won't care about age controls (they'll be old enough), or they won't be old enough to vote, ergo have no voice.
Ask any parent why their child shouldn't see porn, and you'll get a myriad of reasons, ranging from "It's sends out the wrong message to impressionable minds" to "It's just wrong, sex is for one man and one woman."
The big difference with porn is also that it *is* reality - i.e. it's photos, the events actually occured. When you see a movie, you know it's a movie, it's not real, when you see porn, you know it is real (even if it's not realistic).

Headshot

any one ever see bowling for combine that documentry

po0k

seamus wrote:

6 cans of budweiser and 12-year-old Jimmy dies in a gutter from alcohol poisoning.

But American Bud is píss-water. He'd be lucky to get a wee bit merry of six cans.



Also, one of the titles named in the Columbine suit was Mechwarrior.
Utterly rediculous.


Also, in this case, I'd assume that the pistol had the safety catch engaged - if it didn't I believe that's negligence on the Cop's part?
I don't know of any game that has ever implemented a safety catch, least of all GTA.
This man (he's 18 now - and will be someone's wife in prison if he doesn't get the death penalty) obviously learnt how to disengage the safety catch on firewarms from a source other than GTA.

Also, this

Thorbar

I agree with you on the apathetic cashier point, and so I believe we should introduce the same penalities and laws on game sales that alcohol and over 18 movie sales now have.

I understand that there are different reasons for not allowing kids near drink or porn compared to computer games but isn't the end result the same? There are certain things you shouldn't be exposed to when you're under a certain age. Do you honestly believe that a game like GTA 3 will have no effect whatsoever on a six year old?

I'm not running around screaming will someone please think of the children here. What I'm saying is that don't let the little ****ers near our games incase the powers that be decide to ban them for everyone.

Also don't you think the developers have some responsbility here considering the huge profits they're making out of this game. As a programmer myself I consider my ethical obligation not to produce or release software that is damaging to society. Now I don't believe GTA 3 is damaging to society in general but I'm not willing to say that there is absolutely no way in hell a realistic violent game wont have an affect on a child.

Headshot

snoopdog wrote:

any one ever see bowling for combine that documentry

someone must of seen it any way its great tells about how easy is to get guns in america and how easy is to kill a person how the media control the nation

Thorbar

Its an interesting movie but it isn't fact, I'd consider Moore to be just as bias as Fox News just in the other side of the coin. Doesn't mean I think he's full of **** just something to keep in mind when you're watching his stuff.

Balfa

keep it on topic, please\

Cake Fiend

I think we should ban Americans.

garthv

Sico wrote:

I think we should ban Americans.

I concur.

Thorbar

Would you ban the same Americans who wrote GTA?

PHB

I hope the store that sold them the game gives the mother about 100 mill, lets see if they ever do it again.

Its not the mothers fault, the mother has to do something with her grief, the problem is the christian-republicain loonies who want to ban games because of this, those are the people who we should all hate

rainbow kirby

Thorbar wrote:

Would you ban the same Americans who wrote GTA?

Aren't Rockstar North based in Scotland?

Thorbar

You're right, its Rockstar Games that's based in New york.

ambro25

Thorbar wrote:

Also don't you think the developers have some responsbility here considering the huge profits they're making out of this game.

Where is you equivalent claim in respect of Hollywood movie houses? Analogous material, same enormous gains, same case, surely?

Thorbar wrote:

As a programmer myself I consider my ethical obligation not to produce or release software that is damaging to society.

That honours you (and I mean that), but...

Thorbar wrote:

Now I don't believe GTA 3 is damaging to society in general but I'm not willing to say that there is absolutely no way in hell a realistic violent game wont have an affect on a child.

... considering how many serious psych' studies there have been on the subject (and there have already been a substantial amount) AND considering that none have proved conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this effect happens, what is your authority?

Any case asking for developers of any multimedia material to assume responsibility for the use made of it or the supposed effect of it upon the user, when appropriate marking has already been applied to the packaging AND (let's be honest here) the violence of this material is old news, isn't really worth the HTML it takes to display... Hot talks about a Nanny State? Well, how much more nannying do you want FFS?

pickarooney

smiaras wrote:

This post has been deleted.

This isn't about killing cops?

projectmayhem

GTA:SA's "fat-ass" engine (where you can gain weight by not working out and eating incredibly unhealthy amounts of fast-food muck) has inspired me to be fat.

i'm sueing. and i'll sue mcdonald's too. it's not my fault because my feeble mind can't tell the difference between pixels and real life.

stevenmu

SyxPak wrote:

Also, one of the titles named in the Columbine suit was Mechwarrior.
Utterly rediculous.

Are you claiming that Mechwarrior had nothing to do with a group of kids building a giant, heavily armed, killer robot and setting it loose on their school ?

Oh, wait, I think I may have got some of my facts wrong there.


Personally I plan on suing nature next time somebody hits me with a stick. After all it nature is going to produce such a dangerous product, which is obviously intended to incite violence, it has a responsibility to ensure that it will not fall into the hands of those who may may misuse it.

Thorbar

ambro25 wrote:

Where is you equivalent claim in respect of Hollywood movie houses? Analogous material, same enormous gains, same case, surely?

I hold the same opinion for movies but we're discussing games here, in a games forum.

ambro25 wrote:

... considering how many serious psych' studies there have been on the subject (and there have already been a substantial amount) AND considering that none have proved conclusively, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that this effect happens, what is your authority?

I don't have an authority, I've said already in this thread I'm not in a position to state if violent games affect kids or the extent of which they do. I've haven't read extensively on the research done for this nor do I know if current research methods are accurate enough to gague the effect this games have on kids. That's not definative proof that games don't harm or affect kids either. How long did the tobaco industry hide behide research saying that there was no conclusive evidence that smoking harms you.


My opinion is that the laws and penalties which are applied to most age-restricted items (drink, fags, movies and so on) should also be applied to video games. I really don't thing we can rely on parents who in many cases appear to be ignorant or absent to be able to judge if little Johnny is mature enough for GTA:SA.

ambro25 wrote:

Any case asking for developers of any multimedia material to assume responsibility for the use made of it or the supposed effect of it upon the user, when appropriate marking has already been applied to the packaging AND (let's be honest here) the violence of this material is old news, isn't really worth the HTML it takes to display... Hot talks about a Nanny State? Well, how much more nannying do you want FFS?

I believe the developers are still responsible for what they produce after marking it as over 18s considering the age group we're talking about here. I know when I was a kid the 18 sticker on any game I got my hands on was considered as important as a 98% review from PC GAMER. Ok if an adult smokes a box of fags that has a warning on it saying "Smokers die younger" then that's their choice and they can live with the consquences of it.

I don't think its valid to ignore the violent and sexual content of these games based upon the fact that you consider it old news. Don't get me wrong here, I spend a fair amount of my time playing these games and my experience is enhanced by the fact that they're gory and have the odd bit of tits and arse in them. But these games are getting more and more realistic (I'm doing my best to get into a job where I can make them even more so) and all this has happened fairly fast. It was easier to laugh at duke nukem ripping someones head of and ****ting down their neck because the quality of the graphics in the game was almost cartoon like. But now that you're looking at situations where the graphical quality of the games is getting so good its going to get harder and harder to tell the difference between the latest game and the lastest hollywood blockbuster.

As to a nanny state, I don't these games should be banned. I just think they should be treated no differently then how we deal with violent movies. A lot of states in America are introducing tougher legistation on selling video games to kids and I think that's a good idea. I think the penalties which are applied to the renting and sale of movies to minors should also be applied to video games. I know this isn't a perfect solution but at least its a step in the right direction.

I can understand why people are so defensive when it comes to debates about violence and video games. The majority of people outside the gaming community are fairly ignorant of the topic at hand, generally infulanced by shock media antics and very reactionary. I know I get pissed off everytime I hear some old coon on the radio giving out about Grand Auto Theft. That still doesn't mean we can't as a community set back and honestly discuss the situation amoung outselves.

Superman

dare i say it!

Where were the parents?

Cake Fiend

I don't think the issue here is really the age of the murdering psychopath in question. I that if someone is or will be a murdering psychopath, the question of whether they are 16 (under-age) or 17 (legal) isn't going to be very important. This kid was fu<ked up. I don't believe for a minute that him playing GTA before his 17th birthday is responsible. Of course, the parents will try to use this as leverage (although they shouldn't be allowed, as it's not Rockstar's fault that some irresponsible shopkeeper sold him the game), but it's not the real issue IMO.

I've been playing violent computer games since I was very young. I'd imagine many of the regular readers of this board have. I've never killed anyone, and you lot probably haven't either. That's because we're not murdering psychopaths; it's got nothing to do with computer games.

(For the slow-of-thought, I've emboldened the important words in the above post. Notice there are no video game-related words in bold.)

Thorbar

By the same logic Sico saying it hasn't rained on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of this week means its conclusive evidence that it isn't going to rain for the rest of the week.

Do you reckon that there should be no age restrictions on movies as well? I watched violent movies when I was young and sure I didn't go and kill anyone but I wouldn't be so sure that they didn't have some sort of an effect on me.

Cake Fiend

Thorbar, I think you're missing my point.

Are you saying you believe this particular perp's age is an important factor? That the fact that he played GTA before his 17th birthday was a significant influence on him?

Do you think he wouldn't have committed these murders if he had waited until the legal age (17) to play these games?

How about if he had never played the games at all?

BlitzKrieg

Now I don't believe GTA 3 is damaging to society in general but I'm not willing to say that there is absolutely no way in hell a realistic violent game wont have an affect on a child.

interesting enough, film theory believes (look up metz) that it is the lack of control and choice in the imagry you see in a film that has the most affect on a viewer and on their sub concious, due to its similarity with dreaming, bringing in a element of control, for example like in a computer game shatters this connection with the sub concious due to the alienation of the control in relation to the actions on screen. therefore playing a computer game has the same mental effect as playing a sport without the physical exertion.


therefore the only way a computer game can in anyway create anything close to the subconcious level of a film is by creating controls which are not alienated. For example the house of the dead games with the lightgun or arcade racers. But even in these there are limits to the control system (movement etc) And even after that the effect the product will have on a gamer will still be minimal compared to 2 hours in a cinema.

therefore by their very structure games cannot have a serious mental affect on gamers.

Thorbar

Sico wrote:

Thorbar, I think you're missing my point.

Are you saying you believe this particular perp's age is an important factor? That the fact that he played GTA before his 17th birthday was a significant influence on him?

Do you think he wouldn't have committed these murders if he had waited until the legal age (17) to play these games?

How about if he had never played the games at all?

I'm not talking in particular about this one person. At no point in any of my posts did I say that the reason he killed these people was because he played GTA before he was 18. What I'm saying is that we can't beyond a shadow of a doubt say whether or not violent video games effect young kids so we should treat them in the same way we treat violent movies.

That's a good point Blitz but what about the cut scenes in games? Are they not like short movies embedded within the game?

Cake Fiend

I don't disagree with you Thorbar, and I support most of what you've posted so far, but I don't think it has relevance to this particular case. I hope the US courts place the responsibility on the perp rather than the game company. I don't think it's their fault that this kid is a psycho killer. Any sane, responsible person of his age will know that they shouldn't murder people and unless the courts take this stance, it'll only pave the way for more unfair lawsuits.

Thorbar wrote:

we should treat them in the same way we treat violent movies.

A seperate issue IMO, but absolutely true, and most responsible game stores do. But the game developers can't do much if the stores don't take a responsible attitude.

If a gun shop sells a 16-year-old a gun, whose fault is it - the shopkeeper or the gun manufacturer? How about an Xtra-Vision that rents an 18-rated movie to a child - Xtra-Vision's fault or the director's fault? An off-licence selling beer to a child - the proprietor's fault or Budweiser's fault?

BlitzKrieg

Thorbar wrote:

That's a good point Blitz but what about the cut scenes in games? Are they not like short movies embedded within the game?

they take up such a insiignificent aspect of the overall product that i doubt it could affect anyone in a significent way. But no one ever blames the cutscenes anyway when it comes to game violence... :rolleyes:

the_syco

The dude was 17 @ the time of the crime, and is 18 now. He played one game, got arressted for nicking a car, grabs a gun whilst in the police station, kills all 2 cops, and makes it out to another police car, and drives off. He blames all this on GTA.

I've been playing violent video games since Wolf3D first came out (before Doom 1), and I still haven't killed anyone.

I am the rule; the cop-killer was the exception.

Some people just kill. The video game is just an easy scrape-goat.