$246 million lawsuit against makers of GTA3!

JohnT · October 23, 2003, 04:29

Quote:

Lawsuit filed against Sony, Wal-Mart over game linked to shootings
Wednesday, October 22, 2003 Posted: 12:52 PM EDT (1652 GMT)

KNOXVILLE, Tennessee (AP) -- A $246 million lawsuit was filed against the designer, marketer and a retailer of the video game series "Grand Theft Auto" by the families of two people shot by teenagers apparently inspired by the game.

The suit claims marketer Sony Computer Entertainment America Inc., designers Take-Two Interactive Software and Rockstar Games, and Wal-Mart, are liable for $46 million in compensatory damages and $200 million in punitive damages.

Aaron Hamel, 45, a registered nurse, was killed and Kimberly Bede, 19, of Moneta, Virginia, was seriously wounded when their cars were hit June 25 by .22-caliber bullets as they passed through the Great Smoky Mountains.

Stepbrothers William Buckner, 16, and Joshua Buckner, 14, of Newport, were sentenced in August to an indefinite term in state custody after pleading guilty in juvenile court to reckless homicide, endangerment and assault.

The boys told investigators they got the rifles from a locked room in their home and decided to randomly shoot at tractor-trailer rigs, just like in the video game "Grand Theft Auto III."

In a suit filed Monday in Cocke County Circuit Court on behalf of the victims, Miami lawyer Jack Thompson and local lawyer Richard Talley alleged the game "inspires and trains players to shoot at vehicles and persons."

"These kids simply decided to take the thrill of that game out to Interstate 40 and started pointing at cars," Thompson said in a telephone interview Tuesday.

Thompson, who said he sent letters to Sony and Wal-Mart to drop the game before the shootings, said, "It's not like this is coming out of the blue, they chose to ignore this danger."

San Mateo, California-based Sony and Bentonville, Arkansas-based Wal-Mart did not return calls for comment Tuesday. The lawsuit alleges the retail giant sold the game to the Buckners about a year before the shootings.

Douglas Lowenstein, president of the industry Entertainment Software Association, called the shootings "an unspeakable tragedy" but said blaming a game played by millions for the boys' actions was "misguided and counterproductive."

"There is no credible evidence that violent games lead to violent behavior," he said. "While video games may provide a simple excuse for the teenagers involved in this incident, responsibility for violent acts belongs to those who commit them."

Thompson has made similar claims in the past and lost, notably a $33 million lawsuit against video game makers stemming from the 1997 school shooting near Paducah, Kentucky, by a 14-year-old boy.

The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in the case last year that it was "simply to far a leap from shooting characters on a video screen to shooting people in a classroom."

Makes me glad to live here.

Zero · October 23, 2003, 04:34

yeah and blame pacman for kids running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.

Quote:

"Computer games don't affect kids; I mean if Pac-Man affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching magic pills and listening to repetitive electronic music."

-Kristian Wilson, Nintendo, Inc, 1989

Berzerker · October 23, 2003, 04:43

Where there's a dollar to be made, there we will find lawyers and the epitome if inanity.

alva · October 23, 2003, 05:05

Quote:

The boys told investigators they got the rifles from a locked room in their home ."

Nooo, sureley locking them isn't mandatory..,is it...??

DRoseDARs · October 23, 2003, 05:18

Quote:

In a suit filed Monday in Cocke County Circuit Court on behalf of the victims, Miami lawyer Jack Thompson and local lawyer Richard Talley alleged the game "inspires and trains players to shoot at vehicles and persons."

God told me to rob the 7-11...
Clinton makes me want to do naughty things involving cigars...
Blah, blah, blah...

It's called "Lack of personal responsibility and parental supervision."

Urban Ranger · October 23, 2003, 05:47

Maybe people will become inspired to shoot lawyers if crap like this continues.

CerberusIV · October 23, 2003, 05:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Maybe people will become inspired to shoot lawyers if crap like this continues.

Sounds like a great idea for a game!

Grrr · October 23, 2003, 06:10

Link?

Chemical Ollie · October 23, 2003, 06:26

I'm surprised no one has sued Tom Clancy for 9/11. He presented the idea to crash Jumbo Jets into US goverment buildings already in 1994 in the novel "Debt of Honour". I bet he has plenty of money that some lawyer would just love to take away from him.

Adagio · October 23, 2003, 06:56

If games has a such effect on people, I'll end up building a city from nothing, and within short time ending up having one of the greatest cities in America, because I have played SimCity

I can't wait

Skanky Burns · October 23, 2003, 07:25

If games have such an effect on people, I will soon have a large collection of gold cups, gold urns, gold bottles of wine, gold, silver and start walking around with a black jack and water arrows.

DaShi · October 23, 2003, 07:38

Quote:

Originally posted by ADG
If games has a such effect on people, I'll end up building a city from nothing, and within short time ending up having one of the greatest cities in America, because I have played SimCity

I can't wait

And I'll burn it down.

mrmitchell · October 23, 2003, 08:29

It ain't the game

It's the parents

JohnT · October 23, 2003, 08:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr
Link?

Oops. It's from www.cnn.com

lord of the mark · October 23, 2003, 09:04

In related news, Saddam Hussein, Mullah Omar, and Jacques Chirac are suing Sid Meiers, Brian Reynolds, Firaxis, Microprose and Activision (well the defendants' side IS rather complicated - hopefully this will be sorted out) for developing a game encouraging global domination by an advanced, late capitalist, democracy that posseses the Statue of Liberty and the Hoover Dam.

lord of the mark · October 23, 2003, 09:11

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
It ain't the game

It's the parents

yah right. Princess of the Mark went over to our neighbors, who have a boy her age. She didnt want to go there afterwards - "he only wants to play this real violent video game, where you drive around and shoot peope" "princess, was it called Vice City?" "Daddy, I dont know what it was called, it was stupid"

Well thank goodness for POTM - what the hell was I supposed to do - go over there with her, and see what games were played? what were present? Tell the other parents (themselves busy people, who probably decided they had to choose their battles and werent going to fight their son on this one - that my daughter couldnt go over there cause they had Vice City) . All the "its the parents" comments strike me as coming from another planet - probably the planet of the childless

Note this does not mean I believe these games cause violence. I dont know. The fact that Japan has lots of violent video games but little gun violence strikes me as a relevant fact. But it also strikes me that alot of the defence of these games is as reflexive as the attack on them.

BTW, isn't Vice City rated for mature audiences?

lord of the mark · October 23, 2003, 09:16

By the way, I dont expect our neighbor kid to ever shoot people, or go around trying to run over people with a car.

So that means its harmless? He may yet have a more violent personality, bully kids in school, or, alternatively, get depressed.

Or maybe he'll get his aggression out and feel less depressed.

But simply asserting that millions play, hardly any kill, ergo its harmless to youngsters, strikes me as missing the point.

FrostyBoy · October 23, 2003, 10:15

monkey's shouldn't be playing video games

rixxe · October 23, 2003, 10:20

I don't understand why their parents are still free.

SpencerH · October 23, 2003, 10:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Chemical Ollie
I'm surprised no one has sued Tom Clancy for 9/11. He presented the idea to crash Jumbo Jets into US goverment buildings already in 1994 in the novel "Debt of Honour". I bet he has plenty of money that some lawyer would just love to take away from him.

Thanks!

General Ludd · October 23, 2003, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But simply asserting that millions play, hardly any kill, ergo its harmless to youngsters, strikes me as missing the point.

And what would the point be?

Kropotkin · October 23, 2003, 10:32

'Personal responsibility' and 'free will' are things of the past. Let the reallocation of monetary resources through arbitrary lawsuits commence!

lord of the mark · October 23, 2003, 10:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Kropotkin
'Personal responsibility' and 'free will' are things of the past. Let the reallocation of monetary resources through arbitrary lawsuits commence!

These are minors - folks who are not allowed to enter into contracts, to buy alcohol or tobacco, to choose to drop out of school, to marry without parental consent, etc. Our legal system in general does NOT consider them personally responsible in the same way as adults. (in many states they can be tried for crimes as adults, but thats rather controversial)

General Ludd · October 23, 2003, 10:42

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

These are minors - folks who are not allowed to enter into contracts, to buy alcohol or tobacco, to choose to drop out of school, to marry without parental consent, etc. Our legal system in general does NOT consider them personally responsible in the same way as adults. (in many states they can be tried for crimes as adults, but thats rather controversial)

Aparently their parents aren't considered personally responsible, either.

lord of the mark · October 23, 2003, 10:42

Quote:

Originally posted by DRoseDARs

It's called "Lack of personal responsibility and parental supervision."

Parental supervision - vis a vis the guns, or the game playing?

Kropotkin · October 23, 2003, 10:44

LoTM: Yeah, that's good. Take my post seriously.

lord of the mark · October 23, 2003, 10:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld

Aparently their parents aren't considered personally responsible, either.

The parents locked the guns up (Article doesnt say how the kids got them)

Are you suggesting that teenagers should be monitored by their parents 24 hours a day?

Or are you suggesting that no family with minors in the house should be allowed to own guns?

Or are you suggesting that parents who allow their children to play violent video games, like Vice City, should be held liable for their childrens violent acts?

General Ludd · October 23, 2003, 10:50

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

The parents locked the guns up (Article doesnt say how the kids got them)

Are you suggesting that teenagers should be monitored by their parents 24 hours a day?

Or are you suggesting that no family with minors in the house should be allowed to own guns?

Or are you suggesting that parents who allow their children to play violent video games, like Vice City, should be held liable for their childrens violent acts?

I'm suggesting that parents shouldn't raise murderers.

These kids didn't see a problem in taking a gun and randomly shooting at cars. You can't say that's because they played a video game, or because the guns wheren't locked up, it is because of who they are - and the biggest determining factor in that is the parenting.

lord of the mark · October 23, 2003, 10:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Osweld

I'm suggesting that parents shouldn't raise murderers.

These kids didn't see a problem in taking a gun and randomly shooting at cars. You can't say that's because they played a video game, or because the guns wheren't locked up, it is because of who they are - and the biggest determining factor in that is the parenting.

we really dont know that - some of what we are is genetic, some is due to parenting, some is outside influences of all types. And parenting mistakes come in all kinds - you can raise a kid in a way that sets them off, using a method you thought worked. Some kids who have parents who teach them to be moral go bad. It seems a bit presumptious to assume that the parents "raised murderers" IE that they didnt teach them right from wrong.

Ever raised a kid, Osweld?

General Ludd · October 23, 2003, 11:00

Quote:

Originally posted by lord of the mark

we really dont know that - some of what we are is genetic, some is due to parenting, some is outside influences of all types. And parenting mistakes come in all kinds - you can raise a kid in a way that sets them off, using a method you thought worked. Some kids who have parents who teach them to be moral go bad. It seems a bit presumptious to assume that the parents "raised murderers" IE that they didnt teach them right from wrong.

Ever raised a kid, Osweld?

Notice how I said "the biggest determining factor" instead of "the only factor"?

But regardles, since the children aren't considered responsible by law, that means their parents have to be. Otherwise, who the hell's responsible? (oh right, the video game.

)