Court gives go-ahead to GTA murder lawsuit

[Trippy]

(Wasn't sure where to put this one, some mod might want to move it if Politics is a better place for this)

From gameindustry.biz:

Court gives go-ahead to GTA murder lawsuit

Court gives go-ahead to GTA murder lawsuit
Ellie Gibson 16:21 30/03/2006

Trial could begin later this year

Alabama's Supreme Court has given the go-ahead to the lawsuit filed against Sony, Take-Two and US retailers by relatives of police officers murdered by a Grand Theft Auto fan.

A trial judge refused to dismiss the suit, and the defendants have been given no leave to appeal the decision. As a result, the trial could commence later this year or some time in early 2007.

However, the defendants do have the option to launch a challenge over whether the Alabama courts have the power to try the case - which could mean further delays.

The lawsuit was filed by the families of two police officers and a dispatcher who were murdered by 18 year old Devin Moore in June 2003. Moore pled not guilty by reason of mental defect, but was convicted of the crimes and sentenced to death. The plaintiffs claim that Moore trained to become a killer by playing Grand Theft Auto.

Their case was initially presented by anti-videogames campaigner and lawyer Jack Thompson - but he withdrew from the case last November following accusations that he had violated legal ethics.

[Samwise]

Is it possible that this could be a good thing?  It seems like if the case goes to trial and the jury finds for the defendants, it could establish some beneficial legal precedent.  (I don't even want to think about the possibility of a precedent being established in the other direction.)

Law people chime in plz.   

[schild]

Need a young jury that plays video games. I mean, that's the only way they'll be judged by their 'peers' right? Right.

[Ironwood]

Well, not gonna happen, but if it did that would be really cool.

But a jury of your peers has ALWAYS been a myth.  See any race trial ever.

[Yegolev]

Need a young jury that plays video games. I mean, that's the only way they'll be judged by their 'peers' right? Right.

This is Alabama.  Growing up, I could count the real gamers I knew on one hand.  But you never know about jury selection.

[Trippy]

Well, not gonna happen, but if it did that would be really cool.

But a jury of your peers has ALWAYS been a myth.  See any race trial ever.

That's because it is a myth, contrary to popular belief. The US Constitution only guarantees an "impartial" jury as it applies to jury selection.

[Llava]

So wait.

The kid pleads mental defect, saying that GTA brainwashed him into killing.

They say, "Bullshit." and send him to jail.

Then they let this suit go ahead?  Wouldn't a guilty conviction on the first imply that it is the law's position that it was the kid's fault, and not the game's?

Unless they're gonna try and claim that he wouldn't have been as good at killing cops as he was if he hadn't played GTA, to which it's easy to throw up a counter defense- play GTA for a couple days, then see if that makes you any better with an actual gun.

[sinij]

I'm a big fan of a bubble gum, if I ever go on a killing spree please make sure to sue bubble gum makers.

[Trippy]

Is it possible that this could be a good thing?  It seems like if the case goes to trial and the jury finds for the defendants, it could establish some beneficial legal precedent.  (I don't even want to think about the possibility of a precedent being established in the other direction.)

Law people chime in plz.   

IANAL but I doubt an acquittal would mean the end of these sorts of lawsuits. The tobacco industry enjoyed a long string of acquittals before a jury somewhere finally found them guilty and video game lawsuits could follow the same pattern.

[Ironwood]

Well, not gonna happen, but if it did that would be really cool.

But a jury of your peers has ALWAYS been a myth.  See any race trial ever.

That's because it is a myth, contrary to popular belief. The US Constitution only guarantees an "impartial" jury as it applies to jury selection.

Is there an echo in here ?

[Lantyssa]

This is a civil case, and against "wrong doing" or willful negligence as opposed to a law on the books.  I do not believe the precidents for cases like these are as strong.  An unusual ruling may have some consequences, but generally there needs to be several decisions to start a clear trend.

[Dren]

This is a civil case, and against "wrong doing" or willful negligence as opposed to a law on the books.  I do not believe the precidents for cases like these are as strong.  An unusual ruling may have some consequences, but generally there needs to be several decisions to start a clear trend.

Yup, that's why OJ was found innocent of murder but then sued for it later and lost.

Yeah, that makes not sense to me either.

[Roac]

This is a civil case, and against "wrong doing" or willful negligence as opposed to a law on the books.  I do not believe the precidents for cases like these are as strong.  An unusual ruling may have some consequences, but generally there needs to be several decisions to start a clear trend.

Yup, that's why OJ was found innocent of murder but then sued for it later and lost.

Yeah, that makes not sense to me either.

This happens because the amount of proof required for criminal courts are typically higher than civil courts.  This, in turn, is normally because the penalties in criminal courts are normally higher than civil.