PDA

View Full Version : Judge Allows GTA Civil Suit to Proceed


laureato di arte
12-16-2005, 07:21 PM
http://cube.ign.com/articles/676/676602p1.html

Judge Allows GTA Civil Suit to Proceed
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Denied by Court.
by Wade Steel (http://cube.ign.com/email.html)

December 16, 2005 - The civil suit filed by the families of three individuals who were slain by a teenager who claimed that he was influenced by the Grand Theft Auto series will be allowed to proceed according to a ruling (http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/fayette-12-8.pdf) by Judge James Moore, the case's presiding jurist.



Judge Moore's ruling came in response to a motion filed by the case's defendants -- Take 2 Interactive, Rockstar Games, Sony Computer Enterainment America, GameStop, and Wal-Mart -- to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the victims' families due to "lack of merit." Citing Alabama state law, Judge Moore stated that such a motion was premature due to the early stage of the litigation as well as the nature of the plaintiffs' claims.

While this ruling will have no impact on the outcome of the case, it is clearly a blow to the defendants and a victory for the plaintiffs.

It is worth noting that the plaintiffs are being represented by members of the law firm of Jack Thompson, the flamboyant Miami-based attorney and anti-videogame violence crusader.

Mr. Thompson was previously a member of the plaintiffs' legal team for the Alabama trial but his public behavior raised ethical concerns that caused Judge Moore to revoke Mr. Thompson's license to practice law in the state of Alabama and refer the matter to the Alabama Bar Association for investigation. Mr. Thompson insists that he voluntarily removed himself from the case.

We will keep you informed as matters progress on what is potentially a very significant trial for the interactive entertainment industry.

CupOWonton
12-16-2005, 11:39 PM
This is bad, this is very very bad.

I dont think BAD even describes how screwed the game industry would be if these people acrualy won that joke of a case. Videogames dont make killers. Did the GUN make him into a killer? Did his horrible inbread raising leave him with a total lack of respect for human life? No, apparently playing "Asteroids" and later on "Total Carnage" in the 80's made him the violent killer he is today.

This case is a joke. Violent crime in teens is DOWN since the inception of videogames. Theres too many studies that show no real connection between violence and teens, its just not a valid excuse for some homocidal retard going off and killing cops.

zed3D
12-16-2005, 11:48 PM
Ya, this is crap! I have seen so many violent movies, games, and other programs and I am not running around killing in the name of "whatever is currently popular"! This kid was simply a sick, predatory killer! To say a game made you do it is about the biggest cop out I have ever heard. This is as good as, "Ya, my pet fish told me to kill. So I did!" What a joke! I don't see George A. Romero committing mass murder! Anything to get some money!

zed3D

Sagii
12-17-2005, 07:40 AM
I play Halo 2, Socom and GTA on the PSP... and I have become addicted to violence.. First it was only fake pretend violence. Lately it is not only virtual violence, I seek for it everywhere. Now that I think about it, it all started with Street Fighter III years ago. All these years of senseless killing monsters, fake humans and aliens have turned me into a trained killing machine and one very violent person.

Last weekend I went to the grocery store and a woman cut infront of me in the line. I had this burst of anger and I decked her across the head with a bag of potatoe chips, to escape the situation I ran out of the store *I stole the groceries of course because videogames have also taught me to be a thief* and stopped the first car I saw on the street. I pulled out the driver, decked him across the face and stole his car. Then I ran over as many people as I could on my way to the gun shop where I bought a couple guns, a rocker launcher, and a chainsaw... I was out of my mind. That night it wasnt me but the videogames that control my mind. The bloody rampage did not stop until the next day when the police stopped me when I ran out of ammo... but it isnt my fault, I was only a kid when I started playing videogames and its their fault I killed all those people... I am going to sue the makers of these games because they are the ones to blame for all the pain, death and suffering I have caused.....:rolleyes:

CupOWonton
12-17-2005, 08:42 AM
I'm suing Nintendo for my 'shroom addiction.

tufif
12-17-2005, 05:30 PM
As many people as there are who have killed and said god told them too, maybe we can start a class action lawsuit against the church too!

rakmaya
12-17-2005, 05:43 PM
Due to Civ 3 I lost my scholarship in College. If this case goes in favor of the public, I am going to sue the developers and publishers for this. Man... what a system! Talking about lunatic parents and children taking advantage of a stupid system.

barcode
12-17-2005, 05:51 PM
There's a good article in the onion related to this issue:

New Video Game Designed To Have No Influence On Kids' Behavior

December 14, 2005 | Issue 41•50 (http://www.theonion.com/content/index/4150)

NEW YORK— Electronic-entertainment giant Take-Two Interactive, parent company of Grand Theft Auto series creator Rockstar Games, released Stacker Tuesday, a first-person vertical-crate-arranger guaranteed not to influence young people's behavior in any way....

Read more at this link: http://www.theonion.com/content/node/43441

athosghost
12-17-2005, 08:33 PM
When Berkowitz said his neighbors dog told him to kill, why didn't the dog's owners get sued? This whole notion of "the ____ made me do it" is just outrageous. How about we all bring a class action suite against the teenager's parents for waisting our tax dollars and rasing such "perfect" punks.

gunslingerblack
12-17-2005, 08:44 PM
i wanna sue the families for not taking responsibility for thier kids....

laiels
12-17-2005, 08:50 PM
I think people are misinterpreting things a little here. It seems that the notion that is riling people up is the idea that the judge sees some credence to the case by allowing it to continue. I don't think that is what is happening here. THis seems more to be a ruling on procedure than anything else.

Citing Alabama state law, Judge Moore stated that such a motion was premature due to the early stage of the litigation as well as the nature of the plaintiffs' claims.

This is what the article says. Basically it seems like the judge is saying....hey you guys can't file a motion to dismiss yet...we need to follow proper procedure.
Nothing wrong with that. You can't take away someone's right to sue, and every lawsuit should be given proper due process and follow proper procedure.....At least that's my take on it. So in summary, I don't find anything ridiculous about the judge's ruling based on what I read here. (The case itself? yeah it's pretty stupid though) BUt the ruling itself seems perfectly reasonable.

rakmaya
12-17-2005, 08:54 PM
It is not the judge's ruling, it is the mere thought of blaming someone else for your crime. It just says how extend people are willing to go to justify their action which resulted in a murder.

laiels
12-17-2005, 09:44 PM
It is not the judge's ruling, it is the mere thought of blaming someone else for your crime. It just says how extend people are willing to go to justify their action which resulted in a murder.

I think all you people need to read up on the lawsuit a little more. Number 1, in the criminal court case (different than civil court), the accused was found guilty of 1st degree murder. The jury recommended the death penalty, and Judge Moore backed the recommendation. THe killer is now sitting on death row. Furthermore, during the criminal trial, the accused's defense team tried to use the "influence of GTA" as a scapegoat for his actions. THe judge barred any testimony of the "influence of video games". This kind of testimony was not allowed in the court room.

CLearly the court system, in this instance is backing up the video game industry and saying "hey, video games don't make killers, people are responsible for their actions".
If video game influence was given any weight at all, then this guy wouldn't have gotten the death penalty.

Finally, no one is trying to cop out or trying to absolve responsibility for their crime and place it on video games instead. It is the family of the victims that are doing the suing, not the murderer and/or his family.

Cyborgguineapig
12-18-2005, 12:11 AM
I think all you people need to read up on the lawsuit a little more. Number 1, in the criminal court case (different than civil court), the accused was found guilty of 1st degree murder. The jury recommended the death penalty, and Judge Moore backed the recommendation. THe killer is now sitting on death row. Furthermore, during the criminal trial, the accused's defense team tried to use the "influence of GTA" as a scapegoat for his actions. THe judge barred any testimony of the "influence of video games". This kind of testimony was not allowed in the court room.

CLearly the court system, in this instance is backing up the video game industry and saying "hey, video games don't make killers, people are responsible for their actions".
If video game influence was given any weight at all, then this guy wouldn't have gotten the death penalty.

Finally, no one is trying to cop out or trying to absolve responsibility for their crime and place it on video games instead. It is the family of the victims that are doing the suing, not the murderer and/or his family.

well thats good to hear at-least.

rakmaya
12-18-2005, 01:20 AM
Finally, no one is trying to cop out or trying to absolve responsibility for their crime and place it on video games instead. It is the family of the victims that are doing the suing, not the murderer and/or his family.

True, I was talking generally about the more recent events where games are blamed for many actions. What I meant is, it doesn't matter who it is (family of the victim or the anyone lese in that matter) blaming the game is not something I agree with.

pisano
12-18-2005, 02:40 AM
Oooh COmn, another one for the gaming ------ be it that most of us are of the pacman generation, shouldn't we be running around in a dark room with neon lights munching on pills listening to repetetive elktro music?..:eek:...

laureato di arte
12-18-2005, 03:05 AM
Truly SIgmund freud is laughing is Ass off While CHrist himself is asking his Father to F'up the whore so he could get his money back.:thumbsup: I dont understand what you mean by that please explain.

DK3D
12-18-2005, 07:01 AM
CGTALK FORUM RULES!!!



Before posting, please review the following:



Be courteous and polite. Show respect to the opinions and feelings of others. Use of the forums is a privilege, not a right.
Engage your brain before your mouth. You are responsible for your own words and any harm they may cause.
Don't dilute the forums with irrelevant and unnecessary fluff. CGTalk is a professional, moderated forum. It's a place to talk about all things related to computer graphics.
Critiques and responses to images are to be constructive and related to improving the quality of the artwork.
Now i aint no christian (i'm a satanist actually) but bashing peoples beliefs and/or an icon of their religion is just not in accordence with CGTALK forum Rules.

And to people that like to BASH games for the Migitated violence in some titles are ALSO in direct VIOLATION of this forums rules.

Thank whatever "god" you pray to that i don't have moderator priveleges!

Atrokkus
12-18-2005, 07:09 AM
This case is a hoax, a weak political move to turn the majority's attention to irrelevant matters, and obfuscate the issues that really need to be addressed.

First of all, violent urges are not caused directly by visual or aural depiction of the violent acts: it is not to be argued, it is logical enough. The violent urges stem from the mind, from the complex and unique brain (ego). If the ego is already disfunctional and dilusional, then, hell, even pokemon might provoke aggressive notions!

Moreover, just think about the news reports: are they any different than violent games or movies? Hah, they are even *more* influential than games, because they depict reality, which by definition has a much heavier impact even on a stable brain. So, why not sue the criminal news programs?

But what bothers me even more is that Hillary Clinton also tried to sue Rockstar Games for the sex scene in GTA: San Andreas. This made me change my opinion on Mrs. Clinton to the worse possible value. I've never heard of a more idiotic incrimination. *What* is wrong with sex depiction in games? How come movies can show it, and games cannot? Or, does she actually believe that games are for children only? WEll, then, does she really believe that children can't secretly watch some M-rated movie? Is she completely oblivious of similar ESRB rating for games?
It would make more sense (I mean, a lesser evil, of course it doesn't make sense from where im standing) if she sued ROckstar for their bloody titles (forgot their names tho), where you could torture and murder people in all possible ways (well, almost :) ). But hell no, she's more concerned about a natural and *absolutely* peaceful process called sex.
It's either that she just wanted to breed a lot of groundless hype, or she's completely clueless. Or maybe she's got some sexual issues, for that matter.

PhantomDesign
12-18-2005, 01:20 PM
This isn't some major blow - it only means the judge didn't dismiss the case YET.
I'm suing Nintendo for my 'shroom addiction.
I'll have to remember that one.

laiels
12-18-2005, 07:19 PM
Oooh COmn, another one for the gaming history boooks, once again some idiot is looking for a spacegoat for his offspring being in such a FUBAR state of mind.Truly SIgmund freud is laughing is Ass off While CHrist himself is asking his Father to F'up the whore so he could get his money back.:thumbsup:
I mean if games truly did really influence and damage our behaviour, be it that most of us are of the pacman generation, shouldn't we be running around in a dark room with neon lights munching on pills listening to repetetive elktro music?..:eek:...

Sigh, it's amazing how quickly people want to just jump to conclusions without properly understanding things. THis is like the 6th time in this thread someone has made this mistake. Once again, it is the victim's families that are doing the suing, not the convicted criminal.

pisano
12-19-2005, 01:00 AM
CGTALK FORUM RULES!!!



Before posting, please review the following:

Be courteous and polite. Show respect to the opinions and feelings of others. Use of the forums is a privilege, not a right.
Engage your brain before your mouth. You are responsible for your own words and any harm they may cause.
Don't dilute the forums with irrelevant and unnecessary fluff. CGTalk is a professional, moderated forum. It's a place to talk about all things related to computer graphics.
Critiques and responses to images are to be constructive and related to improving the quality of the artwork.
Now i aint no christian (i'm a satanist actually) but bashing peoples beliefs and/or an icon of their religion is just not in accordence with CGTALK forum Rules.

And to people that like to BASH games for the Migitated violence in some titles are ALSO in direct VIOLATION of this forums rules.

Thank whatever "god" you pray to that i don't have moderator priveleges!

I apologize if i offended anyone, i'l edit the post this instant (unless some of you would rether that it remained as a statement against futile lawsuits), but christians ought a develop a sense of humour also, the scenario i portrayed was that the holy trinity do enjoy a game of GTA once in a while and still Jesus turned out just fine considering his behaviour. Unike the slasher who in that case the victim's family should resort to suing his parents rather then resorting to the rich alternative whose income rests on its Goodwill.

I dont understand what you mean by that please explain.

Freud is one of the founding fathers of a particular school of phsycology and part his work regards how our behaviour is mainly based on our parent and child relationship dynamics, hope that clears everything up for you.

laureato di arte
12-19-2005, 01:24 AM
I apologize if i offended anyone, i'l edit the post this instant (unless some of you would rether that it remained as a statement against futile lawsuits), but christians ought a develop a sense of humour also, the scenario i portrayed was that the holy trinity do enjoy a game of GTA once in a while and still Jesus turned out just fine considering his behaviour. Unike the slasher who in that case the victim's family should resort to suing his parents rather then resorting to the rich alternative whose income rests on its Goodwill.



Freud is one of the founding fathers of a particular school of phsycology and part his work regards how our behaviour is mainly based on our parent and child relationship dynamics, hope that clears everything up for you.

I was asking about your Jesus coments. Im glad you are man enuff to apologise for that comment, i respect that. But maybe that comment was a bit to controversial since it is refering to God and his Son it is more than just a religion for some christians it is a way of life...

good health to you.

marcusss
12-19-2005, 06:34 PM
This case is a hoax, a weak political move to turn the majority's attention to irrelevant matters, and obfuscate the issues that really need to be addressed.

First of all, violent urges are not caused directly by visual or aural depiction of the violent acts: it is not to be argued, it is logical enough. The violent urges stem from the mind, from the complex and unique brain (ego). If the ego is already disfunctional and dilusional, then, hell, even pokemon might provoke aggressive notions!

(snip)



Well actually, yes, violent urges can be triggered by witnessing violent stimuli. People suppose a lot of things about "so many studies proving that videogames dont cause violent behavior... blablabla". Actually, I doubt thse people have really researched and read any psychological studies at all. In reality, there are more studies that tend to prove that violent stimuli increases the chances of a violent response. I am deeply convinced that this does not warrant in any way to ban videogames, but people should be less emotional in this debate.

A lot of people say things out of thin air, backing themselves by supposedly a "ton of studies". I happen to be a psychologist, and I read a lot of scientific studies, and what I see is this: kids witnessing violent stimuli later exposed to a problem or a frustration have greater chances of behaving violently. This is what studies say, this is what experiences have shown. The conclusions that we draw from this about video games can be multiple, now, and I wont get into this as it is much more complicated. But, please, stay rational. How can we maintain credibility if we are just as emotionnal as the ones accusing games of causing violence in kids? Dont talk about psychological science and facts lightly.

Mark'Huss

pisano
12-20-2005, 01:24 AM
The phsycologists may have a point, but the products intitial motive is to provide entertainmetn and thus serves its purpose quite brilliantly i might add. Censorship and all that should not obscure anyone from purchasing similar products its all down to the consumers duty to purchase responsibly. In such a case since the teenagers appears to be physcologically damged, it was all down to the parents responsibility for the sakje of tehir own offspring, Humans are not an independant speices, considering we take about 20 years to move out of our nest and your average kitten takes 8 weeks, i doubt how healthy an upbringing the child has had.

If the slasher's parents where to ignore thier sons behaviour and plead ignorant to their unhealthy relationship with their child, as his actions clearly show they didn't know his state of mind.
I really stand by the concept that its all down to consumer responsibility, for instance if I where to show lets say the movie "Blade" to my 13 year old brother he would surley accept it as fiction yet still enjoy the movie, howveer i wouldn't dare screening it to this very quite friend of his, for his tender mind may mistake the existence of fiction and thus well etc..

Read this part as a summary:
Same things counts to drugs, etc... prohibition nor censorship wont stop anyone from getting what one craves, its all down to responsibility.

laureato di arte
12-20-2005, 02:11 AM
Well actually, yes, violent urges can be triggered by witnessing violent stimuli. People suppose a lot of things about "so many studies proving that videogames dont cause violent behavior... blablabla". Actually, I doubt thse people have really researched and read any psychological studies at all. In reality, there are more studies that tend to prove that violent stimuli increases the chances of a violent response. I am deeply convinced that this does not warrant in any way to ban videogames, but people should be less emotional in this debate.

A lot of people say things out of thin air, backing themselves by supposedly a "ton of studies". I happen to be a psychologist, and I read a lot of scientific studies, and what I see is this: kids witnessing violent stimuli later exposed to a problem or a frustration have greater chances of behaving violently. This is what studies say, this is what experiences have shown. The conclusions that we draw from this about video games can be multiple, now, and I wont get into this as it is much more complicated. But, please, stay rational. How can we maintain credibility if we are just as emotionnal as the ones accusing games of causing violence in kids? Dont talk about psychological science and facts lightly.

Mark'Huss

u have some very good points there

Atrokkus
12-21-2005, 03:52 PM
To Mark'Huss:

Though most of what you say I do concur with (although even psychology cannot be taken as hard-set facts, because human mind is much too complex to analyze completely), you seem to fail to see the point in my previous post, and cling to my parallel remark instead. I was saying that game industry, as well as music and film industries, incorporates certain censorship standards (ESRB) that provide consumers with information regarding product's content, therefore striving to warn parents of possible danger that might stem from violence or pornography in games. What I meant was that there are people who are in the first-line of responsiblity for the kid: parents or legal guardians. If a parent recognizes certain psychological abnormalities in his kid, then he must watch out for him more intently, prohibiting explicit games and movies that can actually trigger the inborn predispositions. Moreover, a parent has to be the biggest friend to a child, his greatest teacher, to whom the child will always listen and turn to. If a parent fails to do that, then it's entirely his fault that his child is a criminal or a junkie or what have you.
And yet, these "defenders of the weak-minded" think that it's easier to blame games for all the shit that's happening to kids today. Convenient, don't you think?

By the way, I said "possible danger" because I am absolutely certain that not all children get negatively affected by violence and sex in games (or movies for that matter). My parents did not really care about ESRB, and the stores here don't prohibit selling explicit games to children, so even in early age (11+) I was playing games that contained gore, sex (including quite hardcore, as well) and foulest language you can conceive. Tell you what? I'd regret if I did not play those games, for I enjoyed them immensely. Did that make me a pervert? No, at least not an acute pervert (we're all perverts inside). Did it impulse to commit violent acts? No. Some kids next door were so f**ked up that they loved to torture cats. And I really doubt that it was because they saw someone do it in the movie or something. I never understood their logic and their relish in such pointless violence (mind you, violence sometimes can be righteous and meaningful).

Not that I'm such a perfect human without psychological problems: of course I have them. But all of which I am aware of have nothing to do with violence or sexual perversion, impulsed by said acts in games.

And speaking of sex in games, in particular, I can also assure you that whatever bans insititutions and parents might impose, kids will always find ways to overcome them and get that funny feeling in their weenies. Forbidden fruit is always the sweetest. Why? Because it's goddamn natural! It would be unnatural if a kid is uninterested or even afraid of the subject of sex and nudity (and i"ve seen such kids): they require immediate psychological attention. And yet, people like H. Clinton attempt to fight such natural things as erotica and sex.

CGTalk Moderation
12-21-2005, 03:52 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.