Video Game Responsible For Murder

[Mosch]

Just as I said. the second occurence might be funnyin a slapstick film (Laurel and Hardy comes to mind), but that's because no people get hurt. I would have no problem with the first situation in a video game either. But in real life, it is not acceptable to refrain from helping.

Well, I broke someone's knee once. It was in school, I was standing with some friends beside a door, half blocking the way. A young teenager of let's say 12 years comes along and obviously wants to go through the door. He turns to his friends, they chuckle, and he starts to run in my direction, head down. Of course I see that and watch him run. And of course I take a step to the side.
Let's just say he had a free lesson in gravity effect: He learned that a)It is not a good idea to do a 180 degree turn to stop and b)that Newton's law can be a harsh mistress indeed. He landed on his belly and broke his knee (which was already broken a bit before). Social darwinism at its best. People laughed. I felt no pity for him really (because it was his own stupidity that mae him suffer) but nobody helped him either, eventhough he screamed like hell. End of story: He gets sent to the hospital and people harrass me about it. It's not my fault, and I don't care if he broke his knee, but I'm not going to laugh about his severe pain.
And I think I am desensitized because, well, I saw some pictures that were not pretty in the army (not in reality thank god, but projected). People torn asunder by grenades and mines, Anthrax burn and so on. Many had to go outside or refrain from looking at those pictures, but I could regard them as a "learning experience" - they were, of course a little crudely, trying to get our attention (it was a lesson about cover/camouflage). Those were real people, I knew that.
Virtual stuff, I have no problem with that. If I see a movie I have no problem seeing, for example, someone getting beaten down with a pipe and then dismembered with an axe (from a horror movie I saw recently), becaue it's FAKE and was used to further the story.

And that is the thing I am trying to call attention to: IT IS of course violence, but FAKED violence. If someone can not distinguish between reality and fiction, something serious is going to happen. And well, even real violence can be of use sometimes, but of course it is hard to judge what might be appropriate. I know how to knock people unconscious by hitting the right part, and I also know how to kill people by hitting the right part (it's really incredible what you learn in one month with the army). I am sure however that I would never ever use that knowledge, EXCEPT I have a very good reason. Someone attacking me must be aware of the fact that I might do violence unto him - but not that I might kill him. It might be appropriate to knock someone who tries to mug me out, but well, it might just be me, but I'd rather give him my money, here you have my 20€, go with god but GO.
Of course I never was in that situation, I can only theorize...

 

[Knuckles500]

What if Manhunt is a "good" game.

Think about it.

If we all played GTA, or ManHunt. We could all learn how to fight and protect ourselfs. And maybe put this into some good use for wars.

 

[trooper]

What if Manhunt is a "good" game.

Think about it.

If we all played GTA, or ManHunt. We could all learn how to fight and protect ourselfs. And maybe put this into some good use for wars.

:rolleyes:

A game (especially Gta or Manhunt) can not really prepare you for real life.

Take for instance a flight sim or a driving game, Playing either for month will not give you the FULL experience of controling such a vehicle and the dangers you will come up against in REAL life if you were to make a mistake.

Trooper

 

[bringoutthegimp]

Another example. On one message board with 10,000+ daily viewers, someone posted an image of a woman accidentially falling down some cellar stairs in a grocery store with hitting her head VERY hard as she was going down. So many people thought it was "extremely funny".

this was also on "you've been framed" some guy opened the cellar and she walked backwards and fell right down it. i honestly laughed for about 20 mins. and incase you dont know what youve been framed is its a tv show at about 6:30(?) that shows funny home videos. they had her on the show as well i think she got like a broken leg or something like that, she was also fat which made the whole thing funnier

 

[Dante]

i read yesterday that the kid who did it was 17 and a drug addict, at 17 i would hardly say he was impressionable and i think the drugs would of had a bigger impact on his brain than manhunt which i traded in 2 days after i bought it because it's so shit, people are to quick to pass the blame from their bad parenting onto things like music, tv, film and video games, i think it's about time people take responsibilities for their mistakes.

 

[LHC]

Heaven forbid anyone be held accountable for their own actions.

 

[Skop]

Amen.

 

[mike5622]

seems to me it just makes it easier for people to make a scapegoat of games instead of facing up to the fact that some people are just sick as shit and don't have a problem with inflicting harm on others or killing. just the way it is. there's always been people like that and always will be.

are they saying that if he hadn't played that game he wouldn't have killed the boy? that's crazy.

maybe - and just maybe - the game had influenced the way that he killed the boy. who knows what goes on in his twisted mind. but if he's that screwed up in the first place, if it had been mario he played obsessively he might have stamped on the guy's head. would people be calling out for a ban on mario because one sick individual had been "influenced" by it to kill someone?

a simplistic idiot proof example was used on purpose to make the point before anyone starts flaming.

where does it stop?

some of the people speeding on the motorway have been influenced by project gotham 2.

some burglars only do it because it seems like fun in Sly Cooper.

some car thieves steal because in they're heads they're tanner from GTA.

if this was the case then in the 50's when the poplulation had films like singing in the rain for entertainment would they suddenly start singing at a moments notice and tapdance all the way home? no. because people are grounded in reality. for 99.99% of people what they see doesn't have an effect on their actions. you might see some sick shit and become de-sensitised. it's not gonna make you go and replicate it.

in our generation video games get the blame. generation before it was "video nasties". seems it's just easier for society to have an easy reason for people's actions instead of looking a bit deeper.

bear in mind my thought's are heavily influenced by alchohol so go easy on me. will probably disagree with myself if i read this tomorrow

 

[Bobsonsirjonny]

This is the age of question of does society influence art or does art influence society. Its a complex issue. This game may very well have inspired his actions.

Paul Verhovan insists that his films reflect society - yet I have yet to see a "half human, half machine, all cop" walking down the street. Ive not seen someone raped in the street, nor have I witnessed a drive by shooting. Ive yet to witness the aftermarth of a bomb.

Society has a responsibility to its members. No man is an island, my actions can affect you directly or indirectly, its all a knock on effect.

Ive mates - alsol my cousin, who have served in some pretty grusome battles. After a battle solidiers are never sent home straight away. There is always a cooling off period to allow them to calm down. War asks you to commit the ultimate taboo - to take anothers life. I have been told a few stories that will make you feel sick, grown men crying on my shoulder, psycologically tarnished because they are fully aware of what they have done. Killed someones Father, killed someones Son. I have no intention of repeating those stories here.

However, this story I will share. It is an account from an acquantance of mine. It was his first ever firefight, they were in the Gulf dug in waiting for supplies. They came under attack and killed 18 Iraqis. After they had cleaned up all the bits of body (modern bullets dont just leave tiny neat holes, they are designed to rip the body apart) one of them picked up the scalp of one of the dead men, and wore it like a hat. All of them fell about laughing - and were laughing for days. In the end he only removed the scalp because it started to rot and become fly blown. Some of you may find that mildly amusing, some of you may be horrified.

They had just killed 18 men, tore them limb from limb. Caked themselves in blood. Ended life. After commiting the ultimate taboo, nothing really matters, anything is funny. It quite literally drives you to madness - which is why they do not allow soldiers home till they have cooled off, calmed down and gained that normality which society needs in order to function.

This lad had a screw loose, he was sick. He was also a minor and the game was rated 18. We have these ratings for a reason - to protect young impressionable mines, so they can shape their beliefes and views with fantasy and reason, not the grim and the macabe. The world really isnt that bad a place. Why give people the perception that it is? We have these ratings to protect society. I have been told that real warfare is nothing like Manhunt or Medal of honor - that these games are so different to the real deal - but did the kid really realise that?

Pornography is the same - a little leads to titilation, but too much can be quite damaging. Same with alcohol, a little is a laugh, too much and you end up with a damaged liver, numerous other health problems, being thrown out of a club and weeing yourself. I have a mate who is gambling and loosing thousands of pounds. Its plain to see he has a problem - do I sit on my arse and allow him to spiral into debt which he will never be able to pay, or do I alert him to the problem and help him out of the hole.

I must stress I am not pro out and out banning - but all to often people shout FREEDOM OF SPEECH and their rights, but forget about there responsibilites. We have a ratings system for a very good reason. You wouldnt show hardcore pornography to a one year old - because its identfied as being harmful.

So can you blame this child - in my oppinion you should, it is only right to do so. But what shaped him? The game may well have done its part - but then it is an 18, and he was not supposed to be in possesion of it. His family must not have been keeping tabs on him, neither were his friends. The trouble with this case is that it is isolating the problem down to the game - citing the game as being the catalyst for this young mans insanity. I have no doubt it had a part to play- you cant discount that. But society as a whole should have been watching him. Watching out for each other.

In the same case of Luke Warmsley who was stabbed by a 16 year old in his school. What has gone wrong? The murderer said on several occaisions before the incident that he intended to stab Luke. On the day of the murder people even saw him playing with the blade - why did they not raise the alarm bell? Too selfish, and too "its not my problem". Its the finders keepers mentality - "I found a gold pendant, so its mine, and bugger the person who lost it".

You didnt have this shit in the 50's or the 60's because there was a greater sense of society. The country had been to war, it was bombed to bits - people had witnessed at first hand the true horrors of warfare. They pulled together, they had to rebuild the country. They got on with things.

I guess my point is best illustrated by the new Spiderman movies ;-)


You may wish to read this book - its a very interesting read:

Screen Violence, Edited by Karl French.

 

[pubjoe]

Thanks for sharing an intelligent view Bobsonsirjonny.

It's interesting you mention wartime, as war is something that the current western generation has not experienced in it's homeland, the terrorist attack 3 years ago was only a small reminder. Maybe we are becoming complacent, maybe we have become detached from the reality and the affects of violence.

manhunt is a horrifying game, maybe it shouldn't be soley blamed but it is a good example of our society. The worrying thing is that on it's release I thought it looked shit, but I was not concerned about it's content being specifically harmful. It has taken this horrible event to think about this.

As I mentioned earlier, I'm not against violence in games, or any other media. I'm very much looking forward to Doom 3 and playing farcry at the moment. I thought the gta games were ok (though nowhere near as good as they are hyped to be). Manhunt, however, seems to take the no-holds violence as far as it can, with no restraint.

Obviously, the most healthy thing is variety. Personally, I prefer to escape to the fantasy world of zelda or mario, yet I'm sure that it would be just as harmful to my health to spend ALL my free time in the mushroom kingdom.

Also, while I understand that a parent is responsable for their children's actions, I strongly feel that these days, that that responsability is enormous. This is because you cannot trust today's society OR today's media to show appropriate restraint.

When my son grows up, I will be responsable for him, and I would like to trust him to make his own decisions about what he does with his time. It would also be nice to trust games developers (etc.) to make THEIR own decisions on what is suitable content in a video game for the audience thats going to recieve it.

If they game companies continue to deny all responsability (which, so far they always have), then sooner or later they will have restrictions forced upon them.

 

[LHC]

You didnt have this shit in the 50's or the 60's because there was a greater sense of society. The country had been to war, it was bombed to bits - people had witnessed at first hand the true horrors of warfare. They pulled together, they had to rebuild the country. They got on with things.

Do you actually have any evidence this is true, other than unbelievable "golden memories" told by grandparents etc?

 

[El_Diablo]

as far as war goes, my grandparents used to tell me about how some heartless bastards used to raid houses hit by bombs...

anyway, extreme violence existed before games.
games are all based on perception of the real world and then warped.
they are not however real.
games would not exist if we lived in a black void, thus they are inspired to some extent by the world around us.
actions = responsibility
playing games does not necessitate a particular action response, killers dont enjoy games and become inspired to be violent, they already have a particular leaning towards violence and see something they enjoy/relate to in games...you cant get brainwashed.

 

[Bobsonsirjonny]

You didnt have this shit in the 50's or the 60's because there was a greater sense of society. The country had been to war, it was bombed to bits - people had witnessed at first hand the true horrors of warfare. They pulled together, they had to rebuild the country. They got on with things.

Do you actually have any evidence this is true, other than unbelievable "golden memories" told by grandparents etc?

Go to any public records office. Your local county council will have archieves. Crime rates are a funny thing - crime today isnt as bad as ppl perseave it to be, however it is far greater than it was during the 50's. The account of your grandparents is also a valuable one. They are not senile, they are in full control of their faculties. Hostorians take accounts from many ppl to asses what a time was really like. Furthermore we have footage from the day, radio broadcasts and print media which also backs this up. Society changes. Go speak to any sociologist, and they will tell you of the huge shifts - most noteably, back then you never saw the abuse of the welfare state which goes on now - because there was this sense of community of society, that you all payed into it and it was there when needed.

External influences are more prelevant than ever. As a society we have responsibility. Even myself at the age of 24 can remember a time where noone would think about taking a weapon to school.

Or better still you can take a visit to the likes of the Isles of Scilly. Its like a snapshot in time of the 50's the attitudes are very much commuinity centred.

You go to any small close nit community and you will notice the same. Why do ppl complain about the post office going on grounds that its the centre of the community.

Community, Society, we have lost it.

May I refer you to this: http://www.online-literature.com/short.php...s%20an%20island please read it.

 

[PinkSpider]

It was the victim who actually had the game btw:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page....me=pub&aid=3918

 

[Bobsonsirjonny]

... and see something they enjoy/relate to in games...you cant get brainwashed.

Really. Well you should go and read up on 1939 - 1945.. there was this country, a once proud nation. A nutter weasled his way in.. He brainwashed an entire nation. Was very clever at it. His name was Adlolf Hitler..

I used to work in psychiatrics - if you honestly dont believe that people can not be brainwashed you are surely mistaken. Or do you believe people are born with EVIL genes?

How much is nature, how much is nurture. Its too complex an issue.

We have a wealth of history - its all there ready and waiting. Its the manuscript of the rise and fall of nations, it details all the cock ups, as well as all the good ideas.

Learn from it, so the same mistakes can not be repeated. And Im not an old fart, I just see further than my own back yard, my own drive way gate - there is a whole world out there.

 

[Bobsonsirjonny]

It was the victim who actually had the game btw:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page....me=pub&aid=3918

While it's still entirely plausible that LeBlanc was obsessed with the game, as he and Pakeerah were friends, this new information does raise questions about how the 14-year-old Pakeerah was able to obtain a copy of the 18-rated game; and also about the conduct of the British media in reporting on the story.

The tabloid press, in particular the extremist right-wing Daily Mail newspaper, have already been heavily criticised for ignoring the police reports and prosecution statements which gave the motive for the murder as robbery, with LeBlanc killing his younger friend in order to pay back a drugs-related debt. Few tabloid stories made any mention of the drugs angle.
SOURCE

That did make me laugh - the Daily Mail is a right wing paper, and as a rule I dont prescribe to its views - but to lable it extreme is bunkam. By American standards it would be classed as leftist. As for the British media - they do sensationalise. Infact they could do a lot to help rebuild society, but dont - they would rather divide and rule while serving you up a plate of tits and arse and a story of how some TV presenter is a low down cheating scum bag for dumping his fiance, and another about how football coachs cheat on their wives...

Fogot to add - the game was rated, the kid should not have had it - but then society would have watched out and made sure he didnt have the content right?

 

[pubjoe]

It was the victim who actually had the game btw:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page....me=pub&aid=3918

Thats interesting. Though my opinion still stands.

...Always nice to see the over-excited daily mail get it wrong again though.

On the website Pinkspider links to, I found this article. Maybe we can agree on this opinion:

Grand Theft Auto is the gaming equivalent of a crime movie; it's violent and explicit, but that violence exists in the context of genuinely good storytelling and gameplay. Manhunt, however, is more like a snuff movie. It's a title which delights in its own violence, which encourages players to commit more and more unpleasant murders, and which focuses its entire gameplay on causing pain and killing in-game characters - and in a gritty, realistic setting no less.

As understandable as the grief and anger of the Pakeerah family is, their son would not be alive today if Manhunt had been banned. But Rockstar do not emerge from this affair smelling of roses, and the games industry needs to mature past the knee-jerk reaction of defending all of its titles. The oft-repeated spectacle of the industry being hauled over the coals for the alleged influence of its products on impressionable minds isn't going to go away any time soon; but game makers could help the case a lot by trying to push the boundaries in terms of gameplay, rather than gore.

 

[Bobsonsirjonny]

Grand Theft Auto is the gaming equivalent of a crime movie; it's violent and explicit, but that violence exists in the context of genuinely good storytelling and gameplay. Manhunt, however, is more like a snuff movie. It's a title which delights in its own violence, which encourages players to commit more and more unpleasant murders, and which focuses its entire gameplay on causing pain and killing in-game characters - and in a gritty, realistic setting no less.

As understandable as the grief and anger of the Pakeerah family is, their son would not be alive today if Manhunt had been banned. But Rockstar do not emerge from this affair smelling of roses, and the games industry needs to mature past the knee-jerk reaction of defending all of its titles. The oft-repeated spectacle of the industry being hauled over the coals for the alleged influence of its products on impressionable minds isn't going to go away any time soon; but game makers could help the case a lot by trying to push the boundaries in terms of gameplay, rather than gore.

Indeed

 

[El_Diablo]

excuse me, you miss-quoted me I did not say people cant get brainwashed, I meant games cant do that. And as regarding Germany, people werent brainwashed a lot of people were too scared to go against the common consensus, I can imagine anyone would be terrified in such a situation to go against the norm...

 

[Mosch]

It was the victim who actually had the game btw:

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/content_page....me=pub&aid=3918

Now what do we conclude from that? The possession of video games kills you