Game blamed for hammer murder

[codetrap]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/l...re/3934277.stm

So, half crazy boy there goes out and kills someone in exactly the same fashion as the game depicts, and he plays the game.

Now, I suspect he was half unbalanced to start with, and without an alternate universe viewer this is all speculation, but is it possible that perhaps the game influenced him that little bit further off his rocker?

Now, I loved playing games like Half Life, Doom, Duke Nukem 3D etc.. But when the games get to the point where people are going out and murdering other people in copycat fashion? Have we as a society fallen down on our responsibilities and allowed these murder simulators to become too realistic, and provided a path for the half-mental to become fully mental?

I know for certain I wouldn't allow my children anywhere near any of these games now. The violence is just too realistic for a child to discern the difference between reality and fantasy.. But what about on a social adult level? Do we really need these types of games? How can we cultivate a world of peace, when we're constantly exposed to such realistic violence?

Just a few thoughts..

[BrknFngrs]

I'm pretty much anti-censorship for anything but there have been some really crazy games that I was kind of like "What the hell?". Prime example of this was "Manhunt", though I still played it and have not killed anyone to date so I don't think its necessary to ban them. Though if I had kids, theres no way that I'd let them play Manhunt

[codetrap]

It's a pretty tough topic both ways. Allowing people to virtually kill each other is socially acceptable at this point, but going out and actually doing it isn't. I can see the problem is when the game (or TV show) becomes an individuals reality, and the true reality doesn't apply to their mindset anymore.

The real problem is, where do you draw the line? With a TV show, it's pretty easy, we have a long culture of parental responsibility, and it's pretty tough for a single hour long episode to become your reality. There's simply not enough exposure. But a game, that's a whole different animal. Suddenly you have unlimited (in most cases) access to a virtual reality (effectively if you get drawn into games like I do) that immerses you for hours at a time without a break.

So, do we as a society have a cultural responsibility to limit this? Should we? I don't know the answer, and I can only control my own access and that of my children. I know it begins there, with the parents, but should it be there in the first place?

Are these types of games the equivalent of electronic heroin? Where nothing good comes from it at all, so they're outlawed? Perhaps they should be, or kept so cartoonized where they aren't too realistic to protect ourselves..

Yeah, this whole topic disturbs me.. hence why I'm thinking/typing it out.

[TKRIS]

The government has absolutely no responsibility, nor jurisdiction, to censor video games, music, tv, etc.

Anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool and should fuck off to a dictatorship or communist country if they want an overlord who'll tell them what's best for them. Anyone who wants government censorship is undeserving of the freedoms and liberties that our society is supposed to afford us. They're undeserving of the rights that our grandparents and great grandparents fought and died for.

Ensuring that 16 year old kids don't get exposed to graphic violence or sex is a parents responsibility. Full stop.

Ensuring that kids can tell the difference between fiction and reality is a parents responsibility. Full stop.

Teaching the difference between right and wrong is ultimatly a parents responsibility. Full stop.


That said, there are certain perameters our society has set out that aide in limiting the exposure of mature content to children while still falling short or Stalinesk censorship.
The Sopranos isn't aired between Spongebob and Dora on Saturday morning.
Profainity isn't allowed on the air until after 7:00-ish (IMS).
TV shows and video games have a warning label that immediatly lay out the types of possibly offensive things they contain.

There's all this talk about "Think of the children...what about the children". What about the adults? Do we have to live in a lollipop-gumdrop-bubble simply because people refused to monitor what their kids watch/play and enforce certain boundaries?

[TVG]

Originally posted by BrknFngrs
I'm pretty much anti-censorship for anything but there have been some really crazy games that I was kind of like "What the hell?". Prime example of this was "Manhunt", though I still played it and have not killed anyone to date so I don't think its necessary to ban them. Though if I had kids, theres no way that I'd let them play Manhunt

No man most fucked up game was Postal 2. Not sure what the point of the game was but you just walk around killing innocents, and you can attach a shotgun to a cats ass and shoot out of its mouth.

[KRyn]

Well said TKRIS I couldn't have said it better my self!

[TKRIS]

On the topic of this story:
1.) The judge placed full responsibility on Leblanc, and the police refused any implication that Manhunt was to blame.
2.) Leblanc didn't play video games often, and did not own a copy of Manhunt.
3.) The victims mother was the one who indicated that Leblanc was "obsessed" with the game. Ironically, Leblanc hadn't even played the game and it was in fact her son who owned the game...dispite the fact that he was underage. Gee, I wonder who bought it for him...


The motive for this murder was deemed strictly as a drug-related robbery.
The mother is scapegoating and the media is sensationalising. Nothing terribly new here...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/e...re/3538066.stm

[codetrap]

So, what about this.. enforcing the current laws that bind us as a society within the entertainment industry?

Ex) I'm not allowed to commit murder in real life, why should I be allowed to commit murder in a game?

btw.. just playing devils advocate to Tkris here. I'd personally be pretty sad if I couldn't blow up my buddy in good old Doom.

Edit.. it appears to me from Tkris's posted article that Warren Leblanc (murderer) owned the game, and was the one obsessed with it, and lent it 2 days prior to Stefan Pakeerah (Victim). As for the police rejecting it, well, how much of their official statement is political pandering is completely up in the air.


Edit2.. and all of this took place a couple of years ago.. so it's kindof rehashing an old argument. But still.. something to think about on an otherwise slow day.

[tictactoe2004]

Originally posted by codetrap
Ex) I'm not allowed to commit murder in real life, why should I be allowed to commit murder in a game?

And maybe if im playing Monopoly I should state up front which of my properties is my primary residence.. because I should be paying Monopoly taxes on any non-primary property that I sell to another player... Where do you draw the line?

[TKRIS]

I understand you're not advocating censorship, simply "thinking out loud". As such, if I use the pronoun "you" in an aggressive or offensive manner, understand that I'm speaking of the collective "them", and in general terms, not at you or anyone else specifically.

There are a few problem with enforcing the same morality in entertainment and we deem acceptable in society (as I see it). I'll try to be brief and touch on my major issues, as long-windedness is definitely a weakness of mine.

1.) It infringes upon my personal liberties. I should be allowed to do whatever I choose, as long as it does not infringe upon the rights of others. If I choose to spend my Saturday night playing video games and watching porn in my basement, that's my choice and you've got no say since it's not affecting your saturday night. Unless of course you live in my basement...in which case you'd likely have an agument.

2.) It infringes upon intellectual freedom. I should be free to imagine and think about whatever I wish. I would argue (and all evidence suggest I'm correct) that violent video games are a manifestation of our tendencies to imagine and fantasize about violence, not the other way around. That is to say: video games come from our violent imaginations, our violent imaginations do not come from video games. This is likely why all indications show that playing violent games, listening to "violent" music, etc. have no correlation to an individuals proclivity towards violence.

3.) If your only exposure is limited to moral entertainment, you deny yourself the greatest of life's lessons. Life isn't moral, and to understand it, the disturbing side must be examined. To deny violence in entertainment not only means banning Schwarzenegger's "Terminator", but also Dostoevsky's "Raskolnikov" and Salinger's "Caulfield". It denies Jim Hawkins his adventure aboard the Hispaniola, and it deprives us of our ability to examine deviance and, in turn, to celebrate our heros.

[creeper]

How many people play these same violent games. Millions. How many go out and kill? A handful (who were already fucked up to begin with).

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by codetrap

Edit.. it appears to me from Tkris's posted article that Warren Leblanc (murderer) owned the game, and was the one obsessed with it, and lent it 2 days prior to Stefan Pakeerah (Victim). As for the police rejecting it, well, how much of their official statement is political pandering is completely up in the air.

The only one claiming Leblanc owned the game is the victims mother.
The only one claiming the victim had even played the game is the victims mother.
The judge denied any correlation to the game.
Once the police have the perpetrator, the more attention and controversy a case attracts, the better for the cops (bigger case=bigger case they solved). I see no reasons why it would be in their best interest to deny a link unless there truely was no link.
Both the media and the police love their scapegoats.

[l/l/rX]

Originally posted by codetrap
So, what about this.. enforcing the current laws that bind us as a society within the entertainment industry?

Ex) I'm not allowed to commit murder in real life, why should I be allowed to commit murder in a game?

you know how boring games would be then? all games would be lets build roller coasters and watch people ride them and puke after. YAY! /sarcasm.

a murder in a game is not hurting anyone. a murder in a game is simply just a murder and you start over with 100% health, 100% armour and ammo.

i hate it when this happens, when parents try to ban games due to excessive violence. like ya i know they're upset n all but seriously this whole world is surrounded by violence.

fuck watch the news, you can see our troops blasting off machine guns, shooting @ terroists. you can see cops beating people. ya sure they're doing it for the good of us...but its still violence. its still cool to watch them shoot at other people. just like how in a video game its cool to go around shooting people.

my .02

[TurboMedic]

Ha, I read the title, I thought you meant "the game" was blamed for the murder of "MC hammer"........need sleep

[tictactoe2004]

Originally posted by l/l/rX
fuck watch the news, you can see our troops blasting off machine guns, shooting @ terroists. you can see cops beating people. ya sure they're doing it for the good of us...but its still violence. its still cool to watch them shoot at other people. just like how in a video game its cool to go around shooting people.

The internet would have to be banned before violent games would be.

[Zephyr]

Originally posted by TurboMedic
Ha, I read the title, I thought you meant "the game" was blamed for the murder of "MC hammer"........need sleep

actually i thought that too...


boy play violent video game and goes crazy and kills friend. not really something new...but of course, media loves this kind of stuff..

[SilverRex]

also is it not true that in some cases, having a violent game is a good escape for people? people who are stressed out, and wanted to kill someone, but the game gives them that option, their fulfillment.

it is a very difficult issue to debate on, there will always be two sides of the story.

all in all, this world is messed up, and it will only get worse as technologly advances, people waste alot of time in it and soon you will see less and less families go on camping trips or play ball in the park. Soon everyone will just tab into the computer and instantly hook up with the world for entertainment. everyone will be come socially disconnected, thats when love, compassion, friendship starts fading into the void.

humans will be define as an IP adress with a user name. Oh whats next, collective community? let machines run everyone job and while we just sit at home with our brain wired up to control them. hack, we dont need to goto a different planet to become alien like, we can do it here without changing gravity, since everyone wont move or excercise.

And for religious people like myself, I'll add the thats when God comes back speech.

[spec c]

People are just crazy these days. People never went around jumpin on turtles back when mario came out.

[TKRIS]

Originally posted by SilverRex

all in all, this world is messed up, and it will only get worse as technologly advances, people waste alot of time in it and soon you will see less and less families go on camping trips or play ball in the park. Soon everyone will just tab into the computer and instantly hook up with the world for entertainment. everyone will be come socially disconnected, thats when love, compassion, friendship starts fading into the void.

humans will be define as an IP adress with a user name. Oh whats next, collective community? let machines run everyone job and while we just sit at home with our brain wired up to control them. hack, we dont need to goto a different planet to become alien like, we can do it here without changing gravity, since everyone wont move or excercise.

And for religious people like myself, I'll add the thats when God comes back speech.

EVERYBODY PANIC!!!


» Click image for larger version

[BigMass]

TKRIS has nailed just about every relevant point so far. Good job man.