Boy Kills Brother After Videogame Argument

[cowbell40]

So, the younger kid loses at a video game, then goes and gets a shotgun and loads it as a bad joke (OH HI PARENTS). And the older brother takes it away from him, the gun going off in the process.

It sounds like an accidental suicide, due to their father's negligence in securing his firearms.

Oh, wait, I mean:

The brothers were playing a death simulator, and the older bother, fresh off the high of virtually disemboweling his younger brother, gloats maniacally. The younger brother, driven over the edge by the combination of the adrenaline from murder simulating and his recent e-defeat, remembers where his dad stored his shotgun. And every gamer knows shotguns are the best short range solution in a firefight.

He carefully loads the barrels, but his older brother recognizes the familiar sound of a shotgun loading near the area of the weapon spawn point. He charges in to melee range, prepared for the inevitable quicktime struggle. Then, the older sibling valiantly mashes his brother's face to disable the shotgun, but fails to stop short of the final button press that resulted in an instant kill. In the cutscene after the battle, he realizes that his enemy was actually his younger brother, and unlike their other battles, Aeris dies.

Yeah nicely put. It's ALWAYS the game's fault, never the idiotic parents who teach their 9 year old children how to load and use firearms and then leave the weapons and ammunition around.

 

[axnxgxixe]

I can see it now...

"Violent Video Games Brainwash Children into Blood Thirsty Murderers"

The Father is at fault.

I agree. I can see someone using this as a way to blame videogames and their violence brainwashing the masses and causing the death of children everywhere. Why would you have a gun accessible when small children are around? You should always have a lock on it.

Either way, my condolences to the family.

 

[axnxgxixe]

I blame Mario Kart, Those fights allways end with someone dead.

lol

 

[Therumancer]

Actually I disagree on the bit about teaching a 9 year old to load and fire guns. I feel it should be taught as early as five. But also along with this, should be taught a very strong respect for firearms, not just how to use them. I feel firearms education should be included in school all the way up until college as part of phys-ed and required for progression between grades and graduation.

But then again I'm very pro-gun and think pretty much everyone should walk around with a gun on their belt and know how to use it.

*That* said, the situation is messed up. It does make me wonder what else was going on in the household since even at that age it sounds like the video games might just have been a breaking point to other tensions.

Of course this is assuming that a 9 year old has the capacity to murder and try and cover it up. See, from the way this reads to me the authorities seem to be trying to force the case to fit the "evidence" as they see it.

I wasn't there so it's hard to say, but any way you look at it the situation is messed up.

As far as where the gun was, well all comments by liberals about firearms "safety" aside, during a home invasion the bad guys aren't going to wait to let you unlock your gun, unlock your ammo on the other side of the house, and then load your gun.

Truthfully a feel a few isolated incidents, even involving children (which aren't that common overall, they are just heavily reported by the media) are a small price to pay for the right to keep and bear arms.

>>>----Therumancer--->

I respect yout position on firearms, but must disagree with the notion of teaching children how to use guns. You wouldnt teach a 5 year old how to start a fire, tell them it is unsafe and trust in their rationality not to burn down your house. Children simply havent developed judgement and risk management at that age.
Also, i hope you are not suggesting that you would defend your house from burgulars with a shotgun. No court of law would acknowledge such a murder as self defence unless the victim was pointing a loaded gun at you or your family. Unless you are aiming your gun at an animal you intend to eat or something that intends to eat you, you are using your gun irresponsibly.

Back on topic, the problem with this situation is firearm safety and careless if not brazenly irresponsible parenting. There is absolutrly no excuse for a child to have access to a gun. No excuse.

Well, I think your surprised at what a child can understand even at that age. I mean consider what the kid did for a second. I seriously doubt the parent spent much time on the "respect for firearms bit".

THAT said, I'm not saying that 5 year olds should be walking around strapped. Simply that I think with proper education things like this can be avoided without needing paranoid methods of firearm storage in a household with children.

At any rate, I most certainly WOULD shoot a home invader with a shotgun. Circumstances of course vary, but I'm not going to risk losing control of the situation to the guy because at that point I can't do anything about it. Consider also this means that if he draws his gun before I draw mine I'm done with. Do I REALLY want to take the chance if he's armed or not?
Now if there is only one dude and I get the drop on him, then yeah I might just threaten to shoot him and call the police. It depends on a lot of variables, but in general I'm going to do whatever it takes for ME and my family to survive, and retain our possessions.

In the worst case scenario, I'd rather be tried by twelve than carried by six. I shoot the guy, and take my chances in court. The guy might painfully kill me, chances are for something like this the Court isn't likely to do more than give me a few years in prison, it all depends on the Jury.

What's more it all depends on how I make my case. Contrary to popular belief in self defense your allowed to go one step higher on the "Continuum of Force" (I think that's the proper fancy name, it's been a while) to protect yourself. This can vary state by state. This means that if some dude attacks you with his fists, you can use a light weapon to defend yourself. After all the guy could be stronger, or whatever. Of course the trick here is that as a civilian in public your supposed to flee before defending yourself, and only resort to violence in your defense if flight is not a viable option.

Now it varies with the state, but in general a man confronted in his own home does not need to flee but can stand his ground. Meaning that during a home invasion I am not obligated to run for the back door before defending myself. In many states I am allowed to confront the intruder.

Things like multiple opponents (ie several assailants or people threatening you), and a reasonable suspician of combat training (martial arts, military, etc...) can also seriously sway this. See, if I merely go one step higher on some dude who studies a martial art or was seriously trained in the military (special forces, whatever) then chances are he's going to take my melee weapon and sodomize me with it. Depending on how well I make my case I can probably justify shooting someone if I can present a reasonable case that I felt they had training that made them a lethal weapon.

Now granted that one is a touchy subject, and it depends a lot on the Jury and the situation (how much they sympathize with you), but during a home invasion I could always claim that the guy was muttering about his Black Belt or something. No witnesses, and maybe the guy was nuts? All I was doing was seeing to my own safety. This is like a last ditch thing but it would give you a better chance than "I just shot the guy for breaking in" if you have nothing else.

If the guy is wearing some kind of Kung-Fu shirt (Bob's Dojo, or martial arts symbolism) or some kind of military garb (including a shirt that might just say Semper Fi!: Marines) that could also sway things in my favor with that arguement. Hey, all I had to go by was the shirt. I thought the guy could be an Ex-Marine (or whatever). Before the jury I am of course a poor, stupid, naive victim.

Please note this is all contextual, I am also not saying I would bank on that. Just making the point that I'll pull the trigger if I feel there is any danger of me dying. Then I'll roll the dice with the Jury even if I have to squeeze half remembered crap out of my mental bowels from that portion of my Criminal Justice classes in college over a decade ago.


>>>----Therumancer--->

 

[Nuke_em_05]

First, horrible tragedy. Loss of life, especially so young, is never easy to hear about.

Second, Keeping a firearm and its ammunition in an unsecured area is a very dangerous situation. It is compounded when you have children in your home, knowledge of firearms or not.

Third, Teaching a child to load and use a firearm is probably not the best idea, but not so dangerous if you restrict their access to it.

Fourth, Darrious' reaction was extreme, but would he have reacted the same to losing a ping-pong match, a basket-ball game, or chess?

 

[nathan-dts]

I blame the father for having his gun in a place where the boy could get his hands on it.

I blame the government for allowing people to purchase guns.

 

[Outamyhead]

So teaching the kid how to use the gun, leaving the gun unlocked and the ammo with it, hmmm...wonder what would happen

Yeah it's sad that someone died especially a kid, but what the hell happened to make the kid think "to win this argument I shall load up pappy's gun and shoot my brother!"?

 

[Knight of Cydonia]

I carn't belive i'm commenting on this just after commenting on the kid killing his mum over halo, this is getting out of hand.

 

[IamQ]

Why did he have a LOADED gun in the reach of his kids?!

 

[Arcyde]

So the father taught the 9 year old how to fire and load a gun... and he keeps it lying around the house?

The father is the one to blame in all this.

 

[Squarez]

Darn you crazy kids.