Real life Tommy Vercetti(s)?

Posted on Thursday 23rd October 2003 at 17:29 by SSJ_Cloud

Sony Computer Entertainment America, Take-Two Interactive, Rockstar Games, and Wal-Mart are facing a $246 million dollar lawsuit from the families of two victims who claim their son and daughter were shot as the result of Grand Theft Auto 3 and its influence.

Aaron Hamel, 45, was killed and Kimberly Bede, 19, was seriously wounded after their car was fired upon by two step brothers, age 16 and 14. While in custody, the boys said they had taken rifles that were in their house and shot at cars like one can do in GTA3. The teens plead guilty to reckless homicide, endangerment, and assault in juvenile court and are now serving an indefinite term. The families claim that the game inspires and trains one how to shoot at people and vehicles.

In other GTA 3 news, the title has sold 192,000 copies in its first three weeks of availability in Japan, and has stayed in the country's top 5 for these weeks.

Source: Gamespot

/****/

I feel much sympathy for the two families, but I don't know if this suit wants to make me roll my eyes or agree with it. There are a numerous reasons for the eye roll. Firstly, the game does not teach someone how to use a rifle. Secondly, the game is rated "Mature." If the kids were not able to handle it, they should not have been playing it. If anybody should be sued, it should be the parents for not taking greater interest in what their children were up to (and I'm not saying they should be, necessarily). Thirdly, not one of the companies being named in the suit put the gun in the childrens' hands.

On the other hand, if one is able to sue over the slightest little things in the US (the people who wanted to sue the fast food businesses "for making them fat," I'm looking at you), a person who lost a love one should definitely be allowed as well.

What does everyone else think? I'm especially interested in the non-US members' point of view because I'm not aware of many lawsuits in other countries and how the legal systems handle them.

Posted in: Gaming Industry News

Written by	SSJ_Cloud
	Former Data Collector
	Member Since: 2001-09-17
	News articles posted: 66
	More articles by SSJ_Cloud

Comments

Elena99	Comment 1: 2003-10-23 17:38
	Does anyone know if games like Duck Hunt, where you actually hold a toy gun and shoot at the screen, had any sort of repurcussions like this? I know it certainly didn't teach me to go around shooting random people, but you never know with some of these American kids these days. I think it's ridiculous to sue, however in this case, the lawyer probably convinced the family that they could get a lot of money and attention from doing something as "fashionable" as suing a game company and blaming deaths on video games. Stupidity and lack of common sense is mostly to blame here, in my opinion. It's just a shame that it involved killing innocent people. Furthermore, have people not learned anything after the events of Columbine? Why is a 14-year-old and a 16-year-old able to so easily have access to guns in the house?
Tmagic77	Comment 2: 2003-10-23 17:43
	Does anyone ever think that it might just be that the kids are ****ing crazy in the head? Not everything is the fault of somebody else. Sueing Rockstar games, to me, makes it seem like that family is more worked up over a chance to make money than they are about the deaths of their children. It's a sad sad state that some people are in.
Black Mage	Comment 3: 2003-10-23 18:16
	blame blame blame, people are looking to blame things who are not themselves, in order to pretend they are not guilty. computer games affect children, but they are not the only cause, why have the parents kept a gun where the children can reach it is also a question that should be asked. our world has come to a state where you can sue someone for breathing according to some laws. people should learn to take responsibility for themselves, and not sue for everything, the politicly correctness has created a new world where the most powerful ones are those that are insulted by every little thing that people do. that, IMHO, is wrong.
Del S	Comment 4: 2003-10-23 19:38
	Quote (SSJ_Cloud @ 23rd October 2003 12:29) Sony Computer Entertainment America, Take-Two Interactive, Rockstar Games, and Wal-Mart [dohtml]<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/grandtheftauto3/news_6077161.html">are facing a $246 million dollar lawsuit</a>[/dohtml] from the families of two victims who claim their son and daughter were shot as the result of Grand Theft Auto 3 and its influence. Aaron Hamel, 45, was killed and Kimberly Bede, 19, was seriously wounded after their car was fired upon by two step brothers, age 16 and 14. While in custody, the boys said they had taken rifles that were in their house and shot at cars like one can do in GTA3. The teens plead guilty to reckless homicide, endangerment, and assault in juvenile court and are now serving an indefinite term. The families claim that the game inspires and trains one how to shoot at people and vehicles. In other GTA 3 news, the title has sold 192,000 copies in its first three weeks of availability in Japan, and has stayed in the country's top 5 for these weeks. Source: [dohtml]<a href="http://www.gamespot.com/">Gamespot</a>[/dohtml] /****/ I feel much sympathy for the two families, but I don't know if this suit wants to make me roll my eyes or agree with it. There are a numerous reasons for the eye roll. Firstly, the game does not teach someone how to use a rifle. Secondly, the game is rated "Mature." If the kids were not able to handle it, they should not have been playing it. If anybody should be sued, it should be the parents for not taking greater interest in what their children were up to (and I'm not saying they should be, necessarily). Thirdly, not one of the companies being named in the suit put the gun in the childrens' hands. On the other hand, if one is able to sue over the slightest little things in the US (the people who wanted to sue the fast food businesses "for making them fat," I'm looking at you), a person who lost a love one should definitely be allowed as well. What does everyone else think? I'm especially interested in the non-US members' point of view because I'm not aware of many lawsuits in other countries and how the legal systems handle them. Surely the greiving families should sue the US Government and the State Admininstration for having such lax gun laws? And sue the parents of the killers for being so careless with Rifles?Why blame a game thta was unrealistic in the first place? Sadly, over here, we're like you. Our Judges are idiots too... and we didnt get the chance to vote for them, either. but on the plus side, anyones daft enought to take hostages here using a gun, they go about it too wrong, 22 regiment SAS might just come in the windows... we have more of a deterrent here. The Police with guns here may not have the right to shoot first, nor can they storm a building, but thats where the Special Air Service come in... and the Iraqis will testify you dont mess with British Special Forces. (-yes, i think us brits send the SAS in if a situation gets out of hand, but i cant confirm it.-) But at least after Dunblane, we banned firearms. the US has had how many High School shootings? Columbine, two nutcases shoot thier friends, and guns are still legal? How long will it be untill other lunatics wander into an elementary (if i have the primary school equivelant right here) school, and start shooting? a Nursery? Maybe the Senate and House of Representatives should start learning from reality, and stop defending firearms because Smith and Wesson donate to the election campaigns. The votes lost to gun nuts might be redeemed to anti-gun campaigners, and not to mention the respect on the world stage a Gun Ban would gain. Im sure many people here in Scotlands opinions upon the US would change dramatically if you had tighter FEDERAL gun laws.
Dark Paladin	Comment 5: 2003-10-23 21:30
	I think they have a point with the suit, but are doing it wrong. Instead of going after money, they should be going after tighter control on distribution of these games. When I say they have a point, I don't mean I think these games make kids go shoot people. They just put the idea to do this stuff in their heads by making it look cool. Think about it - because of DBZ you have 8-year olds running around yelling "Kamehameha" and doing the hand thing; because of combat games like MK, martial arts enrollment spikes during the months following their release; because of Mario, when I was six and the power was out, my brother and I were jumping aroung the room, and he smacked his head on the bunkbed, (which explains some of his current behavior). The problem is they make these severe crimes look cool, and I do think they need to regulate the sales of these games a little better. Does Vercettis ever get arrested at the end of these games? Quote (Black Mage @ 23rd October 2003 14:16) blame blame blame, people are looking to blame things who are not themselves, in order to pretend they are not guilty. The ones suing aren't guilty. They were bystanders at the wrong place wrong time when those kids decided to do something stupid. Quote (Del S @ 23rd October 2003 15:38) Surely the greiving families should sue the US Government and the State Admininstration for having such lax gun laws? [...] But at least after Dunblane, we banned firearms. the US has had how many High School shootings? Columbine, two nutcases shoot thier friends, and guns are still legal? How long will it be untill other lunatics wander into an elementary (if i have the primary school equivelant right here) school, and start shooting? a Nursery? Maybe the Senate and House of Representatives should start learning from reality, and stop defending firearms because Smith and Wesson donate to the election campaigns. The votes lost to gun nuts might be redeemed to anti-gun campaigners, and not to mention the respect on the world stage a Gun Ban would gain. Im sure many people here in Scotlands opinions upon the US would change dramatically if you had tighter FEDERAL gun laws. The second Amendment to the Constitution says people are allowed to have guns. The reason we don't have tighter gun controls is because certain groups read this as us being allowed to have guns without restrictions, and fight every movement to try to regulate guns. We have something like 20-30 school shootings a year in the US. Columbine is known because it was the worst.
Elapidae	Comment 6: 2003-10-23 21:50
	The parents of the children are most responsible for this. They probably bought the children the game in the first place, ignoring the big M rating on the box.. How else would the children have been able to aford the game? Part-time jobs at 14 yrs old¿? So these parents bought the game, either not bothering to find out what the game is about or just not caring that they were giving their children a game about being a criminal and killing people. Also, why do so many American's leave guns lying around the house??? Especially with children in the house? That is definatly stupid on the part of the parents...
MorgueN	Comment 7: 2003-10-24 01:02
	This sort of scenario is common in the news in Sydney these days. And doesn't need the influence of GTA 3 for these acts to be carried out. My condolences for the families Aaron Hamel and Kimberly Bede( I pray pulls through). The parents of the two teenagers must take responsibility for allowing the access to the guns to be so easy. Here it would have been big news and if a video game was an influence the Federal Government would be called to have a major crack down on video games.
Tmagic77	Comment 8: 2003-10-24 03:20
	I'd sue the car company for not putting a notice in the owners manual that the windshield isn't bulletproof. Better yet, sue God for creating people without steel skin. Yeah, I bet he's got lots of money.
The_Pink_Nu1	Comment 9: 2003-10-24 04:13
	I believe that they connected their actions with the video game so they had a finger to point at. I really think it all comes down to two idiot kids and lack of gun control in the U.S. For example, the murder rate for the U.S. in 2001 (caused by handguns) was some number around 11,000 I think. In Britain, there were about 30 murders caused by handguns that year. If you want ratio based on that population multiply Britain's murders (30) by about 4 or 5, which is still a huge deficit. The point is this...not even the police in Britain (or many other European countries) carry guns. So finding handguns in those countries are very rare, as opposed to the U.S. And when stuff like this happens (i.e. Columbine), many pro-gun people are quick to blame video games (such as Doom, or in this case, GTA 3). I mean, are people from Britain necessarily better than people from the U.S.? Of course not. The murder deficit all points to the huge usage of guns in our society. I think blaming your actions on a video game is a bulls**t excuse. If you really want to get down into this, rent "Bowling for Columbine". It's a decent documentary. By the way, I always have hated the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Yeah well in many cases "People use guns to kill people"
Tmagic77	Comment 10: 2003-10-24 16:29
	Quote (The_Pink_Nu1 @ 23rd October 2003 23:13) If you really want to get down into this, rent "Bowling for Columbine". It's a decent documentary. By the way, I always have hated the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Yeah well in many cases "People use guns to kill people" Yeah, Michael Moore sure is an objective conveyor of facts. The saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is 100% correct. I've never seen a gun get up, run around a school, and shoot people. Have you ever seen the Family Guy episode when Peter becomes the president of El Dorado cigarettes? One character say "cigarettes killed my father, and raped my mother." The idea that guns are bad is just as absurd.
Dark Paladin	Comment 11: 2003-10-24 17:22
	Quote (Tmagic77 @ 24th October 2003 12:29) The saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is 100% correct The reason people are against them is because they're a means to do so.
Rangers51	Comment 12: 2003-10-24 17:52
	Quote (Dark Paladin @ 24th October 2003 12:22) The reason people are against them is because they're a means to do so. So's a steak knife, and so's a baseball bat, and so is a rock, for God's sake. Guns are harder to get a hold of than either of those three items, and they're not inherently more lethal in untrained hands. The problem is the kids, and their parents, not the guns, and not Rockstar. I get annoyed that the many responsible, law abiding citizens of America get lumped with the crazies. If every industry was treated the way we treat gun users, then we'd have waiting periods to buy cars, chairs, steak knives, baseball bats, rocks, ice skates, ANYTHING that was ever used to commit a murder. Tiddles has correctly told me that all the items I list have non-lethal uses, as opposed to guns. I disagree, because recreational shooting is a valid hobby. But that's not the point, and the point of my post is not that guns = baseball bats. It's that you can't just blindly blame the implement for the actions of the person. The parents of these kids are suing Rockstar because that's where the money is, not because they're really responsible. The responsible parties in this case are the kids and the parents, and to go after anyone else is ethically wrong. And that's the real point, isn't it? You can be for gun control, you can be against it. I personally am for limited gun control, primarly in the form of more invasive background checks and bans on weapons that are or can be converted to be fullauto, and ridiculously stiff penalties against gun offenders. But the question here is not "how much do you dislike guns," it's "why does a gaming company own children's souls so much that they control their every move?"
The_Pink_Nu1	Comment 13: 2003-10-25 01:11
	Quote (Tmagic77 @ 24th October 2003 11:29) Quote (The_Pink_Nu1 @ 23rd October 2003 23:13) If you really want to get down into this, rent "Bowling for Columbine". It's a decent documentary. By the way, I always have hated the saying "Guns don't kill people, people kill people". Yeah well in many cases "People use guns to kill people" Yeah, Michael Moore sure is an objective conveyor of facts. The saying "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is 100% correct. I've never seen a gun get up, run around a school, and shoot people. Have you ever seen the Family Guy episode when Peter becomes the president of El Dorado cigarettes? One character say "cigarettes killed my father, and raped my mother." The idea that guns are bad is just as absurd. I think you should read my post more closely to understand just how much guns affect the death rate in the U.S. (Neither have I ever seen a person without a gun get up, run around school, and shoot people). To R51: You're probably right on a few key points, like of course it's the kid's faults, and probably the parent's as well. (which I should've mentioned) And I probably was being a bit liberal but...my major point was deaths by the use of handguns..handguns are much more common a means of killing than a steak knife, a baseball bat, or a rock, which explains all the precautions when issuing them out.
Tidu-who	Comment 14: 2003-10-25 17:10
	Quote (The_Pink_Nu1 @ 24th October 2003 20:11) I think you should read my post more closely to understand just how much guns affect the death rate in the U.S. . You should watch "Bowling for Columbine" again. Look at Canada, they have just as many guns, and are just as gun crazy as a lot of Americans, yet they had only something like 28 deaths compared to our 11,000.
The_Pink_Nu1	Comment 15: 2003-10-26 01:48
	Quote (Tidu-who @ 25th October 2003 12:10) Quote (The_Pink_Nu1 @ 24th October 2003 20:11) I think you should read my post more closely to understand just how much guns affect the death rate in the U.S. . You should watch "Bowling for Columbine" again. Look at Canada, they have just as many guns, and are just as gun crazy as a lot of Americans, yet they had only something like 28 deaths compared to our 11,000. I wouldn't say they're quite as gun crazy as the U.S. In the U.S., roughly 40 percent of households own a firearm, whereas in Canada some 20 percent of households own one. It has also required owners to register handguns since the 1930s and even tougher gun control laws were passed after the 1989 massacre of 14 women at a Montreal engineering school, in which the gunman used a legally obtained Ruger Mini-14 hunting rifle in his rampage. That, and keep in mind Canada only has about one-tenth of our population.
Please Log In to Add Comments

Printable Version (in new window) · Top of Page

Caves of Narshe Version 6
©1997–2024 Josh Alvies (Rangers51)

All fanfiction and fanart (including original artwork in forum avatars) is property of the original authors. Some graphics property of Square Enix.