Ex-soldier puts his girlfriends 8 year old kid into coma for accidently deleting his GTA save file.

[Vitor Goncalves]

I hope the bandwagon doesn't pick up on this one...

Agreed, the media will be all over this shit if word gets around.

Ex-soldier is a more attractive word for the media then gamer, Guess its not so attractive for gamers, who seems to start in some cases to be a bit paranoid about having fingers pointed to the gaming community. Maybe things are different in the US, but in Europe I am pretty sure concern about gamers and videogames are quite low on society priorities.
So if media here grabs the gamer tag the news are more liely to be overlooked and totally ignored or laughed at (not because they think you shouldnt blame games but because most people will exactly think there are more important things to worry about).

 

[ssgt splatter]

Jesus H Christ.
What the hell?!

 

[esperandote]

People kill other people for money, lets ban money.

 

[squid5580]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

Did you bother to read the article? It stated the facts. GTA is a ultra-violent game. The kid deleted his account that lead to the attack. No where does it blame anything, just states the events as they occurred. This hypersensitivity is just as ridiculous as the other side's.

Why was it relevant that GTA was 'ultra-violent'? It might as well have said "Donadio, who wears glasses". Sure, it's a fact. But it adds absolutely nothing to the report. The intent of its inclusion is obvious, there is no way you can misinterpret that. Plus, it IS the Daily Mail. I can say in complete honesty that the only reason they put he was an ex-soldier in there is so they have something to fall back on if they upset anyone.

Why is it irrelevant? It is what it is. Once gamers can stop being ashamed about it we will probably have an easier go against real enemies like that rapist ***** or the lawmakers that want to censor it.

Well, it IS irrelevant. Yes, the game is violent. It's also sold in a plastic case. Shall we mention that, next time? If they'd have put "...accidentally deleted his profile which was seven hours into the game's story line", they'd have been slated for advocating his behaviour. So that would be relevant, because it helps us tell just how seriously he took it, and how it affected his reaction.
It's journalism. Every word they use is specifically designed to provoke a response. Nobody's ashamed that the game's violent, I just can't understand why they felt it necessary to point out that it's violent. The only reason they would do that is to tell everyone that the game was violent, therefore the violent reaction was caused by the game's content.

Maybe they are trying to move more copies of GTA. When I hear a game or movie is ultra violent it peaks my interest more.

This is the same newspaper that published a tirade against 'Grand Theft Auto: Raoul Moat'.

Well if I didn't you know check the facts and believed that a game like that was coming out I would be offended as well. Just because a game about any subject matter can be made doesn't always mean it should. Or did you miss the part where they said we never bothered to do our jobs and check anything and just assumed this was in development? They could have said yeah we hate video games and looked stupid and lost credibility in front of a small minority (Faux News has no problem doing this). Instead they lost credibility to the vast majority by telling them we didn't bother doing our job and fact check before reporting.

Evidently you missed the point of me mentioning that, thus demonstrating further your inability to pick up on this sort of thing. I pointed that out because you said the Daily Mail might be trying to get more copies of GTAIV sold. That is exactly the opposite of what they want. I'm not one for saying "Bill said this, but he's a dick so he must have meant this", but the tone implied by the article said the whole thing. And I hate the phrase 'ultra-violent'. GTA is not 'ultra-violent'. It's violent. But you're limited in what you can actually do to people...the violence extends to 'you can either kill them or partially kill them'.

If that is what they want then they wouldn't be marketing it pure and simple. They would have maybe said a ultra violent game. Or a game made by Rockstar. Instead they called it by name which is free advertising. And our definitions of "ultra violent" differ apparently. I would call GTA far more violent than a game like Bulletstorm or Gears of war. Even though the brutality may be on a far higher scale the things you are using it against do no resemble real people.

No they wouldn't. Don't talk crap. It's a journalist's duty to include as much information as possible. Leaving the reader wondering 'which game' isn't going to help, and more importantly, it's Grand Theft frickin' Auto! That's like their ultimate scapegoat. They couldn't pass that one up.

And the people might resemble real people, but only so much as a picture of a dog resembles a real dog. The people of GTA have no personality, no feelings. You're essentially shooting moving straw dolls.

So a picture of a dog doesn't resemble of a real dog? Let me guess it resembles a cat right?

And I guess since Jack Thompson and every other anti gaming crusader using GTA as it's whipping boy is the reason it didn't sell millions of copies?

You're bordering on the lines of either stupidity or trolling now. A picture of a dog merely looks like a dog. And that's all it does. It does not act like a dog. It does not smell like a dog. It doesn't feel like a dog. It's not a dog.

GTA sold millions of copies because, to be frank, it is a damn fine game and everybody knew GTA's track record, and how the newest one would naturally be amazing. You might also notice that the sort of people who bought GTAIV are the sort of people who don't take anti-gaming crusaders seriously.

Let me make this really simple for you.


THE DAILY MAIL IS NOT TRYING TO SELL YOU GRAND THEFT AUTO.

Let me simplify this for you. It doesn't matter what their intentions are. It doesn't matter what they intended to do when they made GTA sound appealing. Bottom line is that is what they did for some simply by saying what they did the way they did it. Just like the Dead Space "your mom will hate this" trailer. It is a shame you just can't wrap your head around the irony of it.

Alright, now you're just being an idiot. Plain and simple. I said it was irrelevant for them to put the 'ultra violent' part into their article. It was clearly a dig at violent games being the cause of all evils again.
It was not an ironic statement on anybody's part. You said that it was fully relevant and that they were trying to move more copies. You never once said it was ironic that they would have that effect.

Sorry I didn't realize I had to draw a picture for you. Or you mistook the one I did for resembling irony which wouldn't be irony.

You did not make an ironic statement. You made an idiotic one. Now you're trying to cover your bare and obviously unclean arse by pretending you were being clever and satirical. You've failed miserably.

Oh hey since you already beat me and I didn't get to ask this but do you speak for everyone who works there or just the one reporter? I mean since you in your infinite wisdom seem to know exactly what their intentions were and all.

And the only thing I failed at was typing it out slower so you could understand the first time.

The Daily Mail doesn't hire pro-video game reporters. Okay? Just like it doesn't hire anybody who doesn't bring up Princess Diana as often as possible, or someone who doesn't blame England's economy on the European Union.

I understood perfectly well the first time. You were looking for an argument. And you lost.

Did I? So you have proven that that article is so anti gaming? Really? I think you might wanna go back and read through the entire thread again. Just because they used the word "ultra" which is the only thing they really did wrong does not make it some piece of anti gaming trash article. Oh right I forgot you know everything about every employee there. My bad. I am sure they do extensive background checks and have spy cameras in every employees home to make sure they aren't doing a bit of gaming in their free time.

Been fun. Thanks for the laughs. You can believe you won if that is what will help you sleep tonight. Afterall I can't compete with your astounding logic. You know living here in the real world and all.

Alright, now you're getting on my nerves. Let me lay this one out for you.

THE ONLY REASON A NEWSPAPER TELLS YOU A GAME IS VIOLENT IS IF IT INTENDS TO INCLUDE THE GAME IN THE CAUSES OF THE PROBLEM. GTA'S GENRE IS NOT 'ULTRA-VIOLENT'.
The article may not be an outright assault against gaming, but the stab is definitely there. The reason they wrote 'ultra-violent' is so people would pick up on it and say "Well, there's the problem. Violent game made man violent." If they had written "Grand Theft Auto, a sandbox game about an immigrant trying to make his way in America", THAT would be promoting the game. But the essence of their writing states "The game is ultra violent. That's all it is. It's bad."

Shouting "Have you met the reporters" does you no justice whatsoever. Journalists and editors KNOW how to write. Okay? There are very rarely misinterpretations in a newspaper. They can't afford to make mistakes. If they did not mean to have a go at violent games, they would not have brought up the violence. That is why it's irrelevant. My logic is flawless. I've done journalist work myself. I know full well how to write an article to provoke a response. The response they were aiming for was "game exploits mentally unstable veteran." If you can't pick up on subtle hints like that...then you deserve to be reading the Daily Mail.

See your entire argument revolves around one thing. People are stupid. Without that there is not a problem with the article because anyone with half a brain would see that the game didn't cause it. It never said flat out that GTA causes veterans to kill children or put them in comas. It didn't bash games, gamers or GTA. Why do you think he was called an "ex soldier" instead of a "veteran". It isn't hard to distinguish what the article was really trying to say. So the only people who are going to think the way you just laid out are the people who already believe that. This is what I like to call perspective. A person who doesn't care either way is not going to be swayed by that article and become a anti gaming crusader. No more or less than a gamer who has interest in playing GTA but likes ultra violent games is going to run out and buy a copy of it because they called it ultra violent. So you can sit there and call all the Daily Mail readers whatever you want because you know them all. But until they try and actually link one with the other I will keep calling this as I see it. As nothing harmful or detrimental to the industry. And you can keep making your ridiculous claims which have become a source of amusement for me but you aren't going to change my opinion of it. Or is it going to let you win by me not responding since that is how you seem to think how debates actually work.

 

[Octorok]

Why can't the dude just be fucked in the head? Being a soldier doesn't automatically mean he was in endless firefights picking up his best friend's giblets. For all we know he went into the military with fucknuttyness in tow, not every soldier goes in as a upstanding citizen.

If I could give you some kind of "Like", "Rep" or "Thumbs up", I would.

I'm sick of all the, "Lololol obviously vidyagames, no srsly, all soldiers are crazy murderers and will all go on to brutally beat an eight-year-old over a mistake. It's just common sense."

 

[run_forrest_run]

I accidentally did the same thing to my friend and all he did was jokingly call me an arsehole. This is just wrong. Couldn't have been right in the head,

 

[Amphoteric]

Daily mail therefore I don't believe it.

Tabloids to this kind of shit EVERY DAY to shift sales. show me a reputable news source.

 

[BiscuitTrouser]

Once again, the pathetic nature of nerds wishing death upon criminals and hypersensitivity towards video games being named in news articles overshadow any emotions I might have for the subject at hand.

I'd have to agree with you for the most part, like for example throwing puppies in a river. I mean, its a dick move but does it really deserve death/mutilation/"insert horrific fate here". No. No it does not. Occasionally we hear things that actually (by coincidence) might deserve this rage. This is probs one of them. If you beat a child so badly they are disabled for life("fed through a tube for life") i mean thats... thats just inhuman. Monstrous. I usually take your opinion here but seriously. This is so screwed up.

I thought they went much easier on the game than they could have. I mean seriously. We got off lightly. I envisiaged: "Man cripples child because of violent video games". This isnt that bad compared to that. It is ultra violent. Might be a bit irrilevant but its no exhaggeration at all.

Im also kinda sickened people see this and instantly think about the impact on gamers... what the fuck is this... thats the last thing that occured to me. This is a person. Like. A human being?! Who gives a shit about video games compared to a persons life. Priorities people. Priorities.

 

[zombie711]

I have a rule of thumb, if its about videogames and it comes from fox or any british newspaper besides the one they give for free at the train station, then its most likely a load of crap.

 

[KingWeasel]

I'd say this could have happened if the kid had spilled grape soda on his favourite jacket, the reason is irrelevant, he was obviously just waiting to crack over something.

While not wishing to be rude about the army, anyone who willing joins up to protect their country is great, I'd say it's not natural to be able to coldly kill people, so training to become a soldier is going to affect your mental state. By its very nature, the training has to weaken your resistances to killing your fellow man. A tiny percentage of those people are going to react badly to what they experience during their duty.

I think if I ever find out I have a week to live, I'm going to give all my gaming stuff and tech, music, books, comic books, and movies to charity, and invest in a thousand back issues of the Daily Mail, then go on a killing spree of vapid D list celebrities.

Just for the sheer pleasure of the research finding out 'what made me do it'.

You sir, have just won at "THE INTERNET."

I think it is perhaps possible that he was on the edge of snapping for some time and GTA was giving him a controlled environment to let out this aggression. Upon learning that his game was deleted must have seemed as if the therapeutic world was destroyed, thus causing an out lash.

This does not excuse his behavior, nor do I feel he should go unpunished. To me it seems that maybe GTA held this tragedy off and perhaps could have even stoped it if the guy stayed distracted by the game, who knows.

Realistically the military experiences did more damage than GTA did to his mentality if it was combat, but the article points out the game is violent yet mentions nothing of his typical assignment in the army; such as, combat, engineer, mail, cook, etc. This is spin, plain and simple.

I think this one would be avoided as a "Video games make people kill people" story by other outlets because of his military affiliation and the ease with which it could be argued that anything could have set him off. Maybe Fox News will still try it, but I dont think a real news outlet will say its the video game that made him do it.

 

[Cherry Cola]

Once again, the pathetic nature of nerds wishing death upon criminals and hypersensitivity towards video games being named in news articles overshadow any emotions I might have for the subject at hand.

I'd have to agree with you for the most part, like for example throwing puppies in a river. I mean, its a dick move but does it really deserve death/mutilation/"insert horrific fate here". No. No it does not. Occasionally we hear things that actually (by coincidence) might deserve this rage. This is probs one of them. If you beat a child so badly they are disabled for life("fed through a tube for life") i mean thats... thats just inhuman. Monstrous. I usually take your opinion here but seriously. This is so screwed up.

It's true, this is sickening beyond belief. Part of me want to bash that fuckers brains in. But that's my irrational part.

I don't think that this man can be all out evil. The fact that he's got people supporting him on that blog thingie means that he, for at least part of his life, has been a good man. This happens with some people. They keep things bottled up over years and then strike out in a fit of rage. I'm not saying it's definite that he's a person like that, but there is always a probability. And as horrible as his crime was, we can't condemn him to brutal death when he appears to have lived a normal life like you and I up to this very point.

At first glance, I'm saying this man needs psychological help so that he doesn't keep his rage all bottled up, and some hard prison time as punishment for what he's done. But not death.

 

[captain_Bubblebum]

I don't believe we're getting the real facts from that article due to a number of variables.


Variable 1 - the kid awoke from a coma and made a statement on what happened - how can this be trusted? Awaking from a coma may result in getting details fucked up.

Variable 2 - the kid apparently had part of his intestines removed?? - HOLY SHIT BALLS! This is bound to cause a lot of trauma in any person and, again, could potentially lead to a disorientation in the recollection of events leading to the coma.


Variable 3 - the mother stood by the man and not her son - Why would she do this? Was she present at the time of the accident or was she just taking her boyfriend's own side of the story because she trusted him? Or was she threatened to not tell police that her boyfriend stomped on her child (which we still don't know if that is even true)?

Variable 4 - the other siblings didn't speak out either - why not? Fear? Or some other reason?

variable 5 - they defense changed their story a number of times - why would they change their story? Was it because they were trying to protect someone? Was it really the boyfriend who did this? The unfortunate thing about 'the boy who cried wolf' was that when the wolf finally did turn up, no one believed the boy, so could the same be true here? (when they eventually did settle on their account of what happened - it's reliability would have been extremely weak. Why trust a liar?)


Variable 6 - the Jury took just 30 minutes to decide the boyfriend was guilty - the facts MUST have been damning against the boyfriend....or perhaps the Jury acted upon their emotions? Honestly, who knows?


Variable 7 - DO NOT BELIEVE THE DAILY MAIL!! Fuck sake, seriously, they are full of opinions and not facts and in this article they use the word "accidentally", multiple times, when describing the child's actions of deleting the account. How do we know it was an accident? Maybe he was taunting the boyfriend or one of the other siblings?


Variable 8 - We don't even know the ages of the other siblings so we have no idea if it could have been one of them? If you were an adult who had children and one of them beat the fuck out of one of the others, would you not do your best to protect both of them? Would you not take the fall for one of them? Whether this is what happened, it is a possibility FROM WHAT WE KNOW - which isn't very much.



Finally....

We were not in the court. We do not know all the facts. We cannot form DEFINITE opinions about this case as we are not in a position to do so, though we can form a generalized opinion. Mine being, I think it's a damn shame that the kid will have to eat from a tube cos there are too many awesome foods in this world to be tasted!

 

[KingWeasel]

Once again, the pathetic nature of nerds wishing death upon criminals and hypersensitivity towards video games being named in news articles overshadow any emotions I might have for the subject at hand.

I'd have to agree with you for the most part, like for example throwing puppies in a river. I mean, its a dick move but does it really deserve death/mutilation/"insert horrific fate here". No. No it does not. Occasionally we hear things that actually (by coincidence) might deserve this rage. This is probs one of them. If you beat a child so badly they are disabled for life("fed through a tube for life") i mean thats... thats just inhuman. Monstrous. I usually take your opinion here but seriously. This is so screwed up.

It's true, this is sickening beyond belief. Part of me want to bash that fuckers brains in. But that's my irrational part.

I don't think that this man can be all out evil. The fact that he's got people supporting him on that blog thingie means that he, for at least part of his life, has been a good man. This happens with some people. They keep things bottled up over years and then strike out in a fit of rage. I'm not saying it's definite that he's a person like that, but there is always a probability. And as horrible as his crime was, we can't condemn him to brutal death when he appears to have lived a normal life like you and I up to this very point.

At first glance, I'm saying this man needs psychological help so that he doesn't keep his rage all bottled up, and some hard prison time as punishment for what he's done. But not death.

Very reasonable of you.

I am sure if one of his army budies asked him "Hey dude, if you get home and find one of your girl friend's kids has deleted your GTA save file, are you gunna mess him up for life and put him a in a coma?"

His response would have probably been "No, that seems like a freakishly insane overreaction." He probably would have meant it too.

I never felt he should have been brutally murdered eye for an indescribably painful execution style punishment. But it seems like 75 years of prison will kill him, and we will at least get some cheap labor out of him for that time.

 

[Korten12]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

As usual I find myself agreeing with Soundwave

We'll be agreeing again next month when we're both going on about how awesome Dragon Age 2 is!

I will agree to that.

 

[Kenko]

I blame the videogame, not the traumatic and life altering events that can come with being a soldier.

Yes! Me too, because that makes the most sense! Didnt someone also say that gaming made you into a rapist too? Im sure he raped the kid too as a part of playin GTA IV.

 

[loc978]

Like most of us, this guy seems to have slipped the net on his way out. By the standards of the US military, he should have been diagnosed and treated before this could happen... but he probably lied about how he felt to avoid stacks of paperwork. I know I did. Sad, that he let his rage go in such a ridiculous moment, to such horrific results.
One more thing to say on the matter:

Sounds like a tasteless joke, I know... but this story (among others) outs the sentiment as deadly serious.

 

[SkellgrimOrDave]

Love they fact they do the usual thing of looking at the game as cause of the issue as opposed to anything else. Was the kid a pain in the arse? Was it a bad day? Was the guy just a dickcheese?

Nope, clearly just GTA, just GTA, nothing else.

I fucking hate humanity sometimes, for this, and for the article.

 

[Plurralbles]

people will either blame video games or the military.

Or both.

But really, there's just a large number of dickhead man children in the world.

 

[SideSlyGuy]

They can't focus completely on the game part of this, there has to be some psychological effects of war taking place here.

 

[Cid Silverwing]

Firing squad. Now.