Attorney: Older, Rural Jurors More Likely to Buy “Video Games Made Me Do It” Defense

An attorney not named Jack Thompson has loaned credence to the use of the  video games made me do it defense.

Writing for the Palm Beach Post, Terry Bosky dishes on the increasingly familiar defense tactic of blaming violent behavior of video games. Illinois attorney James Waller told Boesky:

The goal of the ‘video games’ defense is to both shift blame and to explain to a judge and jury why this good kid is suddenly acting like a terrorist. Portraying your client as the victim of outside forces… humanizes the client and shifts the culpability… my job is to present ANY theory to a jury that would explain why my client did the things he did…


[The games made me do it defense works on] an unsophisticated, typically older, somewhat more rural jury pool or judge. To an extent, the defendant is playing on the prejudices that these members of society already have towards video games…


The manufacturers do everything they can to make sure that [the games] are a household name… Restricting supply to create buzz, sensationalizing their own violence to the media, doing idiotic things like leaving the “Hot Coffee” code in the game…the jury knows that a lot of kids today are playing this Grand Theft Auto game and that it’s very violent or adult before we even walk into the courtroom.

Law Prof. Ashley Lipson agreed:

A good defense lawyer will blame everyone in sight, except of course the client – When he or she runs out of people to blame – it’s time to look around for objects. What could be better than a popular videogame?

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. Duncan922 says:

    This guy is not Jack Thompson, just another attention whore…   Jack Thompson has the name "Jack Thompson, attorney at law" or something of that sort registered here. 

  2. scribe999 says:

    Just saying that you were bringing up a political talking points in a discussion about a criminal defense tactic. Sure, it can be used in politics too, but the diminished capacity defense is different from "Look at all the good he’s done…go easier on him". It’s the "I’m crazy and hopped up on sugar or something and not responsible for my actions" kind of response.

    Your argument was more concerned with political correctness and liberal bias, which I am certainly not saying isn’t a problem when dealing with objectively viewing infractions. I only responded with those names because evading a question about the kind of man your pastor is, is somewhat different from criminal acts perpetrated by Republicans and Democrats alike.

    There seem to be all sorts of defenders for people like Strom Thurmond, who’s past segregationist attitudes are dismissed because of his work for Georgia, like Wright’s community service. Or Sen. Stevens with his efforts on behalf of Alaska, despite the fact that he’s facing major indictments on accepting improper gifts in return for influence. Our politicians pretty much try to lie and then add excuses and context and then finally "heartfelt" contrition for their behavior depending on the depth of the trouble they are in. I firmly believe both parties act on this tradition.

  3. Dark Sovereign says:

    Right, I’ll break it down: Obama excused Right’s behavior by pointing to his community service. Monica Lewinsky was lying, I admit. The "Insanity plea" was wrongly used. The liberal arguement tends to go like this: a person should be excused or have their sentence reduced because it’s how somebody else that caused this. I don’t want to dig up the quotes, so I’ll give it to you. And "offensive to blank" refers to the suppression of free speech because it offends somebody. I was talking about adding context to attempt to avoid ill will. Conservatives bring up the excuses too, but people ignore them as "stupid, corrupt Republicans". You see it on this site all the time.  People don’t ignore the liberal excuses.

    And I don’t remember any excuses coming from the examples you mentioned (maybe Mark Foley, but it’s been a while). Care to explain how they tried to context away their crimes? 

  4. Kincyr says:

    "I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

    there. Now you can blame god.

    岩「…Ace beats Jack」

  5. scribe999 says:

    The first part of your post doesn’t make any sense. The Reverend Wright issue didn’t involve a criminal justice in any way…it was a PR snafu for Obama. Monica Lewinsky’s revelation as Bill Clinton’s paramour was a by-product of a failed criminal investigation into Whitewater, and he didn’t make a defense about it…he just outright lied until he was caught with his (figuratively speaking) pants down. The Insanity Plea is a criminal defense that has nothing to do with a person’s politics, and if "offensive to blank" means something offended someone so much that they committed a criminal act, well that goes for abortion clinic bombers, right-wing hate groups and the homophobic "gay panic" offenders as well.

    In what context did Ted Stevens break the law? Duke Cunningham’s? Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, Larry Craig, Mark Foley, Dan Crane, etc.

    Liberal AND Conservative politicians are good with the excuses. Don’t make this a partisan issue.

  6. Andrew Eisen says:

    Good find.  Just read it and you’re right.  The Matrix defense is about the insanity of the killer, not the culpability of the movie.  In fact, the folks quoted in the article are very clear that the movie did not cause these insane people to kill.

    And as for you Thompson, maybe Dennis didn’t post a link to the article because it’s 5 years old and has nothing to do with video games.


    Andrew Eisen

  7. DarkTetsuya says:

    Of course not, you nitwit, GTA did. I mean nevermind the fact it wouldn’t exist for another 20-30 years, but games are witchcraft of the devil anyway, so there you go.</sarc>

    — "Jack and listen are two words that don’t go together…just like Jack and sanity, Jack and truth, Jack and proof, Jack and win…" — sortableturnip |

  8. Dark Sovereign says:

    You hear liberals constantly bringing up "context" to explain their actions. I.E. Reverend Wright, Monica Lewinsky, the "insanity plea", the "offensive to blank" censorsihp…

    And people really don’t buy this defense. You don’t hear reduced sentences when this kind of excuse is brought up.

  9. Neeneko says:

    I am not sure you understand how the matrix defense actually works then.

    While yes, it has been used in sucessful insanity pleas (and getting off for insanity is no picnic since you are then generally institutionalized), it has nothing do to with the movie outside ‘this is the arbitrary piece of fiction that this insane person fixated on’.

    In fact, bringing it up makes an even worse case for the ‘video games made me do it’ defense since the matrix defense does NOT claim that the movie is responsible any more then, say, the church is responsible for the Smart kidnap/rape case.

    So careful with the claims on the ‘video games made me do it’ defense, otherwise a LOT of Christian leaders could be held responsible for the horrors inflicted by their less sane followers.

  10. JC says:

    "People will use the Videogames made me do it defence because they believe that they are not hurting anyone

    But what they are really hurting…"

    You worry about the industry first? Why not worry about the the victims? 

    The fact that this defense is even considered, is silly. The fact that they think an inanimate object will allow them to clear their clients of wrong-doing and should be considered an insane plea instead of a great defense. There are better tactics, and blaming a damn disk for the reason why a client goes berserk is a silly notion, since the ideas of blaming movies isn’t necessarily a great tactic as well. If they can truly be influenced by violence depicting objects, they should be labeled insane and try that route. The fact that actual video games can’t be "violent" since it incapable of commiting violent acts should be reason enough that such a defense is stupid. This goes right up there with the "TV" being the devil of the era since without the screen or a monitor to display it, the game can’t do anything except exist stationary. The game can’t be violent, since it is incapable of doing such acts, and it can’t do anything on its own, it needs a display to actually show it, and therefore, a TV/monitor would be the object of blame, no? 


    Still, a very silly defense.  A good defense lawyer tries smart things to get their client off; if it really is that much of a stretch, the insanity plea is better and more plausible since they were dumb-ass crazy to go do something stupid. A good defense lawyer will also be sure to soften the blow and go for other options. A video game defense is a laughable attempt at trying to shift blame, similar to shifting the blame to the victim of these crimes.

  11. Anonymous says:

    Actually, they don’t, it couldn’t have been God making them do something ‘bad’, so therefore it must have been Satan, though, I’m not sure where they’d stand with a ‘Satan tricked me into doing it’ defence, would they then find Satan guilty of a crime? Do they think he cares?

  12. sortableturnip says:

    This isn’t madness……THIS IS REAL LIFE!!!! 

    *kicks Jack Thompson down a bottomless pit*

  13. sortableturnip says:

    Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, Chef’s attorney would certainly want you to believe that his client wrote "Stinky Britches" ten years ago. And they make a good case. Hell, I almost felt pity myself! But, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, I have one final thing I want you to consider. Ladies and gentlemen, this is Chewbacca. Chewbacca is a Wookiee from the planet Kashyyyk. But Chewbacca lives on the planet Endor. Now think about it; that does not make sense! Why would a Wookiee, an eight-foot tall Wookiee, want to live on Endor, with a bunch of two-foot tall Ewoks? That does not make sense! But more important, you have to ask yourself: What does this have to do with this case? Nothing. Ladies and gentlemen, it has nothing to do with this case! It does not make sense! Look at me. I’m a lawyer defending a major record company, and I’m talkin’ about Chewbacca! Does that make sense? Ladies and gentlemen, I am not making any sense! None of this makes sense! And so you have to remember, when you’re in that jury room deliberatin’ and conjugatin’ the Emancipation Proclamation, [approaches and softens] does it make sense? No! Ladies and gentlemen of this supposed jury, it does not make sense! If Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must acquit! The defense rests.


  14. Anonymous says:

    So cry me a river Jack.

    You stopped being relevant a long time ago, now it’s just you and the sound of your own voice.

  15. DavCube ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    For God’s sake, Thompson, Dennis isn’t trying to compare himself to the big news stations like NBC, ABC, and CBS. (Which are the ones you should try getting on, since people, like, ACTUALLY WATCH THEM.)

  16. face777 says:

    These kind of scumbag lawyers piss me off immensly, and are a large contributing factor to the way society is heading – a blame culture of incompetents who want free money and fame but have to do nothing at all for it.  Defences such as these, and especially the ones by whacko jacko remind me of the rape cases over here which are reduced in penalties because the victim was ‘wearing proocative clothing’.


    Isn’t it sick that something like wearing tight jeans means being raped is YOUR fault, not the sick little chav bastard who commited the sick acts. It isn’t your parents fault, it isn’t alcohol’s fault, it isn’t being a poisonous little thug with an iq comparabe to a shoe size (UK sizes), the culprit is 100% responsible for his/her on actions.  We really need a few cases where factors such as these are not only blown out but enhance the punishment to set examples.



  17. w00f says:

    Why exactly is this happening? I thought the "video game made me do it" defense was considered unconstitutional

  18. Duffy says:

    This brings up an interesting quirk in our legal system. At some point the argument is no longer that someone committed a crime or not, it’s why they committed the crime, which from my limited understanding of the concept of law, is not important in 99% of the cases.

    The only thing that is related and may matter (of course this is all opinion), is the state they were in when committing the crime, and this list should be incredibaly short and should not negate a crime, only lessen or modify the punishment.

    Basically, unless you are bat shit insane, you should not have any sort of defense in a case like this, and even then you should still be locked up, just not *only* because you committed a crime.

  19. ooftygoofty says:

    Good guess.  Actually, it’s Cal State Fullerton.  As far as I understand it, the shooting was in the basement of the library, where the computer lab is now.  Freaky stuff, but I didn’t find that out until I’d been going there for a while.

  20. KayleL says:

    Are you talking about the Brampton Centennial Secondary School shooting? I happen to go to that school.

  21. TBoneTony ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    People will use the Videogames made me do it defence because they believe that they are not hurting anyone

    But what they are really hurting is the Videogame Industry that is constantly under attack from Govenments, News Media, Lawyers, Psychologists and Religious Family Groups all too willing to piont the blame to videogames.

    And it is the Videogame Industry that suffers, it is also the hard working developers who suffer, it is also the Videogame Retailers who suffer but most of all it is the honest Gamers who suffer the most because of other people blaming their entertainment medium for acts far worse and out of their own control

    Until the Videogame Industry takes a strong stand against this sort of bullying tactic by different members of society, they will always be a scapegoat for laywers and politicians and family groups unless if Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo make a stand together on this to try and inform the public of what really goes on here.

  22. TBoneTony ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Any evidence is good evidence for many lawyers even if it is streaching the truth.


    If a Defence lawyer tries to use Videogames to blame, it is up to the Judge and the Jury to see though it.


    The Bible made me do it has little hope because people already know the bible well enough, but videogames since they are new to the older generation is something that works many times…


    As a gamer who knows more about Videogames than those who don’t, it all makes me want to become part of a jury to try and set things right and not to be fooled by these types of people.


    I hope that Judges are able to look into detail like we gamers do.

  23. ooftygoofty says:

    I thought you were mad at the Washington Post for retracting your favorite story, you pedophile-enabler. 

    By the way, I’m writing this in the computer lab of a school where a tragic shooting occured in the early 70’s.  Did Pac-Man make them do it?

  24. ooftygoofty says:

    They’ve described your methods, exactly: misinforming the technophobic for personal gain and to release criminals from their most basic responsibilities.  Or are you offended that they don’t say they’d rather kids be sexually abused than play video games?

  25. Erik ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    If such a tactic is as effective as you say then why haven’t you won any relevent cases?  At all.  Ever.

  26. Conejo says:

    this is the sickening part of our justice system.  if you’re guilty, you shouldn’t be able to scapegoat someone else.

    Here are we — and yonder yawns the universe.

  27. shaoron says:

    i don’t really like to use such word.. but on such occasion i think it is necessary…..



  28. Tarosan (Can't be asked to log in atm) says:

    The Video Game made me do it defense is just a poor excuse for crackpots and unprofessional lawyers to spew their own crap… but this does make sense in a way.

  29. hayabusa75 says:

    "[The games made me do it defense works on] an unsophisticated, typically older, somewhat more rural jury pool or judge."

    So basically, it’s designed to work on closed-minded idiots.

    Also, isn’t the Matrix defense rooted in the defendant’s overall lack of mental stability, and not the potential harm (real or imagined) of the movie itself?  Jack, why don’t you show us an acquittal that was won DIRECTLY because the jury and judge bought the arguments on harmful media, and not because of an insanity plea or something else.

    If you can’t, shut the f_ck up about things you know nothing about.

    "There is no sin except stupidity." – Oscar Wilde

  30. Father Time says:

    "Restricting supply to create buzz,

    No they create buzz by hyping up the game a lot before it’s released, kinda like Hollywood.

    sensationalizing their own violence to the media,

    The media does that themselves. 

    doing idiotic things like leaving the “Hot Coffee” code in the game…"

    You think that was a publicity stunt? The game was all ready controversial enough as is and was generating good reviews. I guess it’s the new coke way of thinking (a blunder that big by a large company must’ve been planned)

  31. KayleL says:

    So, you are saying that this defence might work. What us gamers are saying is that it’s a stupid and wrongful excuse, and you can’t change that.

    Jack, you want to protect the children, but how are you when you are making killers into the victim, so they could go back onto the streets much faster.

  32. kurisu7885 (can't log in) says:

    ALso, WE are NOT the ones who might have their law licenses taken away due to 27 
    CHARGES OF COURTROOM MISCONDUCT!!!! Not to mention all those people likely waiting to sue you for various reasons after the fact. I wonder how hard it will be fidn yourself a lawyer since you can’t defend yourself anymore, not that you’d do that good a job if you tried.

  33. kurisu7885 (can't log in) says:

    Don’t bother asking. He won’t link it as he knows we’d read it and see the part her picked that he liekd, but the rest won’t play into his favor.

  34. GryphonOsiris says:

    Expecting real evidence from Johnny-boy is like expecting anything but the Wookie defense from the South Park Johnny Cochran. Should know that by now Andrew.


    "The Good, the Bad, and Videogame"
    Reviews on the best, worst, and controversial issues of Videogames.

  35. kurisu7885 (can't log in) says:

    The twinkie defense worked ONCE. Name when it’s worked since, excluding cases you’ve been aq part of since we know it’s never worked for you, the video game defence beign no exception

  36. Xlorep DarkHelm says:

    And yet, they whacked part of a story when they discovered that you had basically made it completely up without proof? Hello VA Tech…

    "I’m not responcabel fer my comuter’s spleling errnors." — Xlorep DarkHelm

  37. jjj says:

    I hate to spoil the little bitching party here, but in fact Tom Jackman of the Washington Post has written a lengthy article about the success in criminal cases of the diminished capacity defense, and particularly as to the success of "the Matrix defense."  Yes, as to Keanu Reeves’ movie.  You gamers sure are smart about things you know nothing about.  Look up the Jackman article, Dennis, and why don’t you post that, even though Jackman is a REAL journalist and the Washington Post is a REAL news organization.  Jack Thompson 

  38. GryphonOsiris says:

    You’d be an expert in stupid defenses then Johnny-boy?


    "The Good, the Bad, and Videogame"
    Reviews on the best, worst, and controversial issues of Videogames.

  39. JustChris says:

    It’s one thing to defend your client and another to be digging for gold. A competent lawyer would not grasp for straws such as the "video game defense".

  40. Andrew Eisen says:

    Of course, the flip side to "A good defense lawyer will blame everyone in sight" is a competent judge and sensible jury would see through that horse doo-doo.

    Andrew Eisen

  41. JBthompson says:

    This is not the video game defense.  This is one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read.  Jack Thompson

  42. EvilTikiMan says:

    Any attorney that trys to use this defense should have his/her case or at least his/her keaster Kick bodily from the courthouse. Only a skum bag and/or some one with no skill would use such a stupid defense. A true attorney would not need to rely on manipulating and playing on a judges beliefs (which he or she is suppose to leave at the courthouse steps for the most part), but would instead use their debating and (level-headed) arguing skills to prove that their clients should not receive punishment or at least lest then they would otherwise. While I understand that it is hard for someone to defend someone who has just killed half a dozen people in front of eye witnesses and all, they can atleast not resort to such underhanded and skilless tactics. And if they dont have the skill to do it then they should find some one else who does.


    Responsibility: Something that everyone has, but no one seems to want when something goes wrong. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  43. Neeneko says:

    With the problem that the twinky defense rarely works.

    I can see defense attorneys trying it, but it is usually a method of last resort.  Even when the jury might be swayed, judges rarely buy this load of expletive.

  44. KayleL says:

    There are two problems
    1) God made me do it won’t work in courts, how come people believe in Video games made me do it.

    2) They are justifying the actions of a criminal event. Why would society allow that?

  45. Anonymous ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    GTA made me into a multi-millionaire that has never broken the law, given to charities on a regular basis, and helps me sleep better at night since I have a place to vent my aggression.

  46. Leet Gamer Jargon says:

    This defense is probably one of the stupidest things I’ve ever read about. Only those who have nowhere else to turn to would use this pathetic excuse. Kind of like Jack futilely trying to defame the Florida Bar so they don’t shred his license, because either than mudering the whole of the Bar, he’s just about lost all other options and won’t stop the inevitable.

    By the way, Jack, did you like the t-shirt I sent you? I hope you’re a Large (although with your giant ego inflating your head, your body might be a Large, but your head might need an XXX-Large collar).

  47. oto kirlama says:

    Gallagher can araç kiralama say all he wants, but I strongly rent a car believe it’s due to his crappy leadership and E3 being a joke. ESA’s Board of Directors need to find a way to get out rent a car of this horrid contract with this Bush cronie before there’s no one left on the Board.

    Btw, I think Atari and Midway will drop out too, but mostly travesti because  these guys have done nothing ttnet vitamin or little and need to start saving costs.


  48. Duncan922 says:

    In most these cases, they do not know anything about the case or the individuals involved in the case, what the article is talking about is that filthy, low-life, scum-bag, but smart lawyers use the "videogames-made-me-do-it" defense in an effort to play on the prejudice of simpleton jury and shift blame away from the real criminals, the defendants.

  49. scribe999 says:

    Ummm, the jury is NOT supposed to know much if anything about the individuals in a case or the case itself if it can be helped to prevent prejudices from clouding what is supposed to be an objective investigation of the trial facts and the trial facts alone. During voir dire, attorneys pose questions to prospective jurors to gauge what kind of prejudices and level of objectivity (or lack thereof) they may have in regards to the case at hand. If sensationalistic media coverage is overwhelming and it’s near impossible to find a somewhat objective jury pool, an attorney can apply for a change of venue to pull from another, perhaps less contaminated, jury pool.

    The problem with juries that "know" the participants in a trial is you get things like the show trials in the segregated South back in the 50s and 60s where all-white juries would consistently let the home grown white men free despite overwhelming evidence that they murdered blacks and student activists.

  50. Zevorick says:

    You took the words right out of my mouth. Gosh, and here I thought I’d only rarely use information I got from my undergraduate cj classes.

    Anyway, like many people have noticed, they pretty much state that only ignorant people with prejiduces are going to buy the "____ made me do it" defense. This is NOT restricted to just video games. How many of you have seen Reafer Madness? There are documented cases after that of people actually trying to use the "Pot made me kill my sister" type defenses. These people are masters at what they do. They have to be because they are going to be fighting uphill battles 9/10. In fact, one of my former roommates mother was one of the best defense attorneys in a neighboring county for child molesters. She was so good they later gave her the position of assistant district attorney. Do you know how many cases she won? Zero, but she did get a hung jury once. She accomplished this by a very similar strategy in which the jury came back with "you know, he’s guilty as sin, but he’s not that bad of a guy".

    That being said, they pretty much said that any jury with half a brain and an open mind won’t buy this defense, so it’s pretty much as expected.

  51. chadachada(123) says:

    Well in the US it’s supposed to be a jury of my "peers." Frankly, I’m seeing a lack of that in many cases, were they will choose jurors that are completely clueless for a given case. Rather sad, really

  52. Anonymous says:

    Apparently in medeival England a jury was comprised of people who knew the defendant personally. Allowing them to evaluate the evidence and the individuals actions against previous experience.

  53. cullarn says:

    yeah i got that feeling too they sounded a bit dissapointed that this defence was used while at the same time saying we have a job we have to do ( as i said before i mean no disrespect to lawyers (most of them anyways =p) )

  54. Anonymous says:

    Why is the slogan for the same people who hate video games "guns don’t kill people, people do" not the same for video games?  Something like "video games don’t kill people, people do".  Yet these same people who will defend guns won’t defend video games.  I just don’t get it and I am a gun owner.

  55. Andrew Eisen says:

    There wouldn’t be an issue if the aforementioned consumers, politicians, and lawyers would stop acting like nutters.  There was no reason for Rockstar to go through the time and expense to completely remove the code.  Why bother?


    Andrew Eisen

  56. Anonymous says:

     On the one hand, I can see that it was expedient of them to leave the code in…  on the other hand…  UNIT TESTING – if everything was unit-tested, there wouldn’t be an issue.  Good testing procedures, while time consuming, can allow them to remove code like that and make sure no errors would ensue.

  57. gs2005 says:

    In the USA, combine ignorance, purtiannical sex values, politicans looking out for themselves along with traditional media reporting on it in an invective way, and you have an instant firestorm that logic and reasoning will not easily extinguish.

    You are *assuming* that someone actually WANTS to learn about unused code.  Some people, such as the PTC, just virtually stick their fingers in their ears, shut their eyes, and start screaming at the top of their lungs, "blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, I, blah, blah, blah, can’t, blah, blah, blah, hear, blah, blah, blah, you, blah, blah, blah…", because they are on an agenda.

    Kind of like Johnny Bruce Thompson…


  58. EvilTikiMan says:

    I would say that that analogy is fairly accurate. Anyone who has any experience in programing can can attest to this. I know i can.


    Responsibility: Something that everyone has, but no one seems to want when something goes wrong. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-

  59. YukimuraSanada says:

    You Know, after watching that video from screwattack and hard news, which admittedly is one of my new fav shows online, it’s easy to see that jack thompson has a classic case of Multiple personality disorder, or at least a version of it.

    You see, theres the calm, thoughtful, intelligent jack that the public gets to see, then theres the raving, unhinged, walking out on his own hearing jack that the florida bar and we gamers came to know.

    That being said, he did make a number of factual errors in that interview, the most Glaring of which was his statement about rockstar selling games to kids online.

    News flash jack, You have to have a Valid Credit card to do so. Guess what, the FTC accepts that as PROOF OF AGE!!!!

    You immediatly invalidate your argument when you start lying or making factual errors. Seriously, I know your not that stupid. CLinging to such a clearly false statment is why the bar is kicking your ass out of the legal profession.

    Still, Gta 4 is, for all that can be said about it, the most deep and real of any of the GTA series, and for the most part, a damn fine game in it’s genre. It’s not that it doesnt have sex or violence, but that seems to be the very least of the games focus.  At least when I play it. All in all, Gta is not the problem. Anyone who plays GTA for the sheer purpose of creating slaughter and Chaos already had issues.


    "You want a story, here’s a story for ya. Demons over there, Kill they ASS" Ben zahtzee croshaw, smartest man on the planet.

    "Everyone needs more Epic rap battles of history in there life, if only to get them more interested in a variety of subjects" ME

  60. Anonymous says:

    Chicken (to bender): I may be a simple country hyper-chicken but I know when we’re finger-licked. What do you say we plead insanity?

    Bender: A few months in an insane asylum? I could do that standing on my head.

    Chicken: If you start now, it might help our case.

    Judge: Counselor, what evidence do you offer to support this new plea of insanity?

    Chicken: Well, for one, they done hired me to represent them.

    Judge: Insanity plea accepted!

  61. Grendal says:

     Actually legal counsel not only has the right to do that they very well may face disciplinary action by the bar of their particular state if they don’t do everything in there power to get there client off. Assuming it is legal off course, same goes for the prosecuting attorney it is their job to do everything within their power to convict the defendent.

  62. Dog Welder says:

    This is, to some extent, why I hate the legal profession*.  If they KNOW their client actually killed someone, it’s "use any tactic to get them out of it."  A person accused of a crime might have a right to counsel, but that counsel doesn’t have the right to use every slimy trick in the book to set a guilty person free on a technicality.  In his recent letter to the ACLU (found over at JAABLOG), Thompson is crying a river about how Judge Moore purposefully "denied" Devin Moore the "video game defense" that has kept Devin Moore on Alabama’s death row.  (My response?  GOOD!  It sounds like common sense prevailed!  If you kill a cop, you get injected with Drain-O.)

    *Note: I realize there are good, well-intentioned attorneys out there who would never resort to this type of behavior.  My generalized comment should not be taken to mean "every attorney."

  63. godofyouall says:

    Yeah I remember when the story first broke here on GP there were not many people at the time sticking up for R*.   Those that did were regarded as R* fanboys.  It’s nice to hear from others like Andrew who feel the same way as me about the HC incident.  I agree that the whole situation was blown way out of proportion and they clearly had no idea how the technology they were condemning actually worked.

    I remember at the time the GTA modding community who created the HC mod were the only ones who I could see that were sticking up for R*. They released a statement (see below) actually defending R* despite the fact that nearly everyone else was wrongly claiming that R* were trying to pin the blame solely on the GTA modding community.  The modders could see what everyone else obviously couldn’t that the politicians wanting to make a name for themselves and anti gamers were just using this as an excuse solely to try to ban games like GTA.   If anyone knows the real story behind the coding of the game it’s the GTA modders and I couldn’t understand why more people didn’t actually pay attention and listen to what they were saying. 

    The re-rating of the game and the debacle that followed was absolutely ridiculous


    Here is the press release

  64. Geoff ( User Karma: 0 ) says:

    Thank you!  So many people have a hard time understanding how code actually works.

    Typically, because altering one part of the code can affect another part (resulting in bugs, crashes, etc.) the developers will "lock-out" features of the game rather than removing them.  I’m really sick of people, some of whom are gamers, saying that R* placed "Hot Coffee" in the game to create controversy. 

    This may not be a perfect analogy but it should at least get my point across.  Building a game is like building a house of cards: If you suddenly remove a couple of cards in the middle most likely a part if not the whole house will collapse. 

  65. Andrew Eisen says:

    "…doing idiotic things like leaving the “Hot Coffee” code in the game…"

    Leaving the Hot Coffee code in the game was not idiotic.  It’s standard programming procedure for abandoned features.

    What was idiotic was the reaction to the discovery of the code.  Honestly, who could have possibly foreseen the rampant idiocy of consumers, politicians, and lawyers who complained about something they had no accurate understanding of?


    Andrew Eisen

  66. kurisu7885 (can't log in) says:

    "A good defense lawyer will blame everyone in sight,"

    I re read this and jsut started laughing. The lawyer who originated this defense does this excessivle,y and no one would call him good by any stretch of the imagination.

  67. Apex Slug says:

    Any people wonder why many in our society lack basic responsibility. It’s ALYWAYS someone else’s fault.

    This article depressed me more than most; our society is rotting.

  68. C. Aaron Browbowski Jr. says:

    what a classic defense only the likes of JT would use to try to shut down rockstar

    Jesus Jack Jones Thompson told me to do it!

  69. cullarn says:

    i know its their job and that this is a nessicary job they do but to hear it like this makes it sound . . . well disgusting (i mean absolutely no disrespect to defence attorneys as i said their job is nessicary)

  70. kurisu7885 (can't log in) says:

    I see they too are frustrated that a person thinks they can get out of being a sex offender by claiming GTA made them do it.

    And the person who opened this floodgate has no intention of closing it.

Comments are closed.