News Game blamed for hammer murder

Games are the work of satan, and must be destroyed!

This from the Beeb:

Stefan was repeatedly battered and stabbed by his older friend
The parents of a boy who was murdered with a claw hammer by a friend have blamed a violent video game which the teenage killer was "obsessed" with.
Warren Leblanc, 17, repeatedly stabbed 14-year-old Stefan Pakeerah after luring him to a Leicester park to steal from him on 27 February.

He pleaded guilty to murder at Leicester Crown Court on Wednesday.

Stefan's mother described Leblanc, who confessed to police moments after the assault, as "inherently evil".

More here

As tragic as this is, I still don't believe that the game is at fault. Both my brother and I have played Manhunt, and we don't have any homicidal tendencies. I suppose it's down to how 'mature' and grounded in 'reality' the player is for want of better words. But how do you measure that?

Also, why did Leblanc have the game in the first place? It's got an 18 certificate.

 

Damn games, I wish they would stop killing people.

 

Why is always the fault of someone else?, if it's not games its movies. I've been playing games for 20years and it's never made me want to kill people. I've watched countless violent movies and once again never killed anyone. maybe the parents are to blame for allowing him the game? who knows?
But to blame a game that hundreds of thousands if not millions of people have played and not killed anyone is ridiculous. How many of us have played a deathmatch? almost all I'd bet, and how many of us have killed someone, I'm willing to bet very few if not none.

Remember GTA got the blame for something not too king ago.

When they blame video games it just really gets my blood boiling.

MiniG

 

Bloody hell, yet another idiot mother trying to further sanction our rights. Remember, this next bit is coming from somebody who has been diagnosed with very real and serious mental problems. Thinking that games cause people to get ideas about killing people is just plain nuts. Speaking purely from personal experience, it's how your own mind perceives the world that dictates if you go out and kill something or not. Right now when I sit all alone yes I do get pictures of flesh ripping, of blood spilling, and no I can't stop it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to act on it, I'm just finding myself cutting my arm, or leg. But believe me, it's in no way related to violent games/movies, it has a lot more to do with the abuse growing up.

Let The Flaming Begin​

 

If violent media breeds violent behaviour, why don't romance movies, dating games, etc cause everyone to go ****ing in the streets?

 

Absolutely. You cant blame a virtual game for someone who isnt mentally stable. I agree about the 18 cert too, parents are to blame there perhaps?

Out of the millions of games that sell worldwide every year, its hardly something to get all stressed about, just cause one nutcase looses it. Obviously i feel sorry for the familys envolved etc - but as a parent, sure you should be able to tell if your kid has homicidal tendances (i seriously doubt his obsession and murderous intent occured overnight).

 

parents take responsiblity

man this is startin 2 **** me...parents there r rating on games, music and moviez for a reason. take this advice and follow the ratings, here in australia theyre tryin 2 ban hitman: contracts and even my 50+ yo dad agrees that while some of the games take things out of proportion its still up 2 the parents to enforce it. i let me family play my other comp and i only have racing games installd on that. seriously if they think that this game is gonna increase the murder rate 100 fold there ****d in the head.

also if the kid thinks like that he shouldnt b playin any game period. this from my 50+ yo father.

 

on the beeb news last night it said that they couldnt show you the game as it was too early in the evening for such shocking images. they cut from that story to another one , showing a bull mastif that had been starved to death by its owner and had then been chewed up by a second starving dog. i know which image i ( and my seven year old daughter for that matter ) found most disturbing. bloody holier than thou media . they couldnt care less if its something they are showing or reporting on , just as long as they get to show their own indignation and moral "outrage".

anyways , isnt it just proof that lunatics can enjoy video games too ?

 

LOL, yea.

There's an image on a bus advertising something todo with the fire service going round at the mo - its basically a skull, with human eyes and flames all around it. The first time i saw it even i thought it was quite disturbing (its the full height of the bus, covers the whole side), and yet "virtual" stuff and movies are rated more stringently?? When movies and games depict a form of art and entertainment and artistic expression.

 

Well he has a point - some people can't understand that it's just a game. Although throwing my younger brother out of a window would make me unbelieveably happy, it doesn't have the slightest thing to do with video games (if you lived with him, you would understand). But in all reality, it's not ideas that people get from the game that would drive them to do something like this. I heard of someone comitting suicide over dying in Everquest and indeed, about a week later they patched in a timer to tell you to get some fresh air.

Regarding the M rating on games... I think WAY too much value is placed on age in our society. I know plenty of kids that are much more responsible than adults three times their age. Like my thoughts of getting a drivers license (or other "responsiblity-related" things) should be based on IQ not age... and I'm a strong believer in any Darwin award slogan (notably: improving the gene pool by eliminating yourself from it). I'm not going to argue about it, but if you think about it, most people who do something like this or get arrested for whatever reason, or indeed win a darwin award, are just plain dumb or were quite dumb at the time of doing whatever was done.

I agree, let parents determine some things. They know their kids responsibilty, not the store clerk. Problem is that many parents would use this advantage as punishment, if you will. We really need a responsibility waiver...

 

Now personally I find Manhunt a rather tasteless game. But I don't think it is going to turn players into homicidal maniacs. Even though these things are notoriously hard to reseach and riddled with methodological problems, (I mean, how do you set up such an experiment?) psychological research has never found any connection between violent computer games and actual aggressive behaviour. Same for films, by the way.

Of course there will always be suggestible, unstable people out there, and you could argue about what came first: did they feel drawn to the game because of their mental predisposition and behavioural trendencies in the first place, or did the game "inspire" them to behave aggressively?

Thing is, when a tragedy happens, people need to find a Cause. They need to have somebody to Blame (even if it's just to say it's an "Act of God"), to retaliate against. It's a human desire to regain some cognitive control over life that basically is scarily uncontrollable. Simple ideas work best in this, because really we have simple minds. "It's the game that done it!" is an easier explanation to live with than asking yourself where the parents, even though they did their best as they knew how, might have got it wrong (and their parents before them, and the society kids grow up in, etc.), how the kid got a game with an 18 rating in the first place, or whether perhaps a few kids just grow up to do these things no matter what you do... now that's a scary notion.

Either way, to blame games, or films, or rock music, or whatever, is to abdicate adult and parental responsibility.

 

Games don't kill people, people do!

 

i have played video games since i was seven.i played T2,Doom,Postal 2 etc and i've never ever thought about acting upon what i have done in these games(expect driving games.thanks to them i can now drive fully after having only 10 hours of tuition.) i come from a nice stable family.we're all stable normal people.i play violent games with my father and brother.we play deathmatch on postal 2 and MOH:AA and i've never thought about cracking my brothers skull in with a shovel.

to me it seems that the beeb ITV and all those other PC b*#*#rds are jumping on the anti game bandwagon.they are trying to get a charge of corporate manslaugter brought against Rockstar but the thing is it's not Rockstars fault,its not the development teams fault,its not the marketing teams fault.Its the people who sold this nutter the game and the nutters parents who are to blame.they shouldn't have given him access to something that he should never have played.But as per usual the PC brigade and the Nanny state will f*#k things up for the rest of us normal stable games players.

*oh god i've just seen ITV's report on the story and its pissed me off no end*

 

Ok no one here would disagree with the fact that we need certifications on both games movies and pretty much most forms of media.

Why do we need that?

Simple (I think) because people of different ages have different understanding levels.

I play far cry, I know its not real, I love running down a beach, stopping, kneeling, zooming and popping some guy in the head with a m16 assualt rifle. However I understand that what is actually happening is very different from doing that in real life.

Someone of less understanding (or mixed up understanding) might not see it like that.

What you have to remember is a persons age doesn't guarantee understanding, a 16 year old might be more mature than a 20 year old.

So obviously the certification thing is a generalised guide, it assumes that an 18 year old person can comprehend and cope with the material within.

Clearly there will be people that get mixed up and can't cope with the media.

Now where in all that could the media possibly be to blame?

Personally I think it is up to society to spot this kind of mixed up person and deal with it appropriately (councelling, medicine etc), now who would you say in society would be most likely to spot a child/man/woman like this? Ding ding ding thats right the parents.

Who was it that was blaming the game again?

 

So, the mother new that this nut job was 'inherently evil' and obsessed with a rather graphic game, but she still let the kid hang out with him? Perhaps someone needs to explain to her what being a mother is all about and the responsabilities that go along with it. Silly b*tch, should have looked out for him a bit more - no use blaming a game now.

 

So Dixons have caved to the alarmist press.

 

I saw that and it just made me angry.

The womans son has recently died and the first thign she wants to do is sue Rockstar and make a quick buck. She doesn't need any money. It's not like there is loss of earning in the family, she just wants to mkae some money out of it.

I just don't understand how people can blame video games. I've spent many hours playing Super Monkey Ball with my friends but I've never had the inclanation to get into a big plastic ball and run around collecting bananas.

You can't blame a game for affecting someone who is clearly unstable and should never have been let access to any game designed for an adult. The parents should have realised there was something wrong with him and got him some professional help.

 

What's next, a 'Mother's Against Canada' similar movement

 

I read this on the Beeb this morning. It's absolutely shocking how a kid can lure someone to a secluded area, then proceed to beat him to death with a hammer, and stab him a multitude of times. Don't get me wrong, the constant linking with video games does get my back up as well, but I can't help but think that they do have some effect.

Now, I know that these games have age certificates, but be honest, when was the last time you gave a flying **** about an age rating on anything, except where you have no choice, like driving. But it's not just games of course, films are more and more graphic these days, and you get 'more for your money' in lower and lower age ratings.

And in this day and age with broadband becoming more common place, and the ease of which discs can be copied and distributed, restricting access to such content is damn near impossible. Even if you can somehow limit your own child(ren) from downloading these games, and watching these films in your house, what's to stop them watching and playing them at their mates where their parent's are less stringent. Or for them to get a copy off their mate.

Of course I would hope that you'd know if your kid is the type to go and beat someone to death with a hammer and that you would take measures to protect the child, both from themselves, and others from them. What is perhaps more worrying is everybody else and their children, and what they're doing to protect your child from their little psycho.

I dunno, I worry for the day I bring a child into this world.

 

It's all too easy for people to immediately blame videogames as they so often do. I agree that playing Manhunt probably did lead to this murder, but does that mean that if Manhunt had been banned that he wouldn't have done it? I don't think so. If someone is so suggestible that playing such a fantastical game can make him go out and commit a brutal murder, then there would have been some other trigger. Another game, a film, maybe even a book would at some point have made him do something similar. The issue isn't with violence in games, it's with young people being so easily dragged into their own fantasy world.