Man Shoots, Kills Seven Year-Old Girl in San Andreas Row

>>Whether the game influenced the shooting or
>>not, the similarities between the random
>>violence depicted in San Andreas


Did he take the bitch's money after he killed her?

Did Tenpenny arrest him?

If not, he's not really playing GTA.

Kid (allegedly) steals something. Get's shot by owner of something.

I imagine this happens every day in the US. But because it's over a copy of GTA, the goods in question are obviously to blame.

This pyscho probably would've done the same over a Madagascar DVD.

Back in the day this would have been over a pair of Air Jordans...but thats what makes it a news story. If this was over drugs/liquor, or a car no one outside of Detroit would even be aware that it happened. Rockstar bears exactly the same amount of blame for these kinds of tragedies as Michael Jordan.

I can't help but wonder if her brother had stolen the game, not to imply that that would in ANY way justify the sociopath in question's actions. Just considering who, if anyone outside of Brown himself can be considered culpable. Of course if he didn't that makes this all the more senseless and tragic, but in no way diminishes the guilt of her murderer. If he did, I hope him and his parents feels real good about themselves.

This is damn stupid, no disrespect to the victims of this crime meant.

There is this thing called beyond a reasonable doubt. If you were to ask me if the criminal if he got the idea from GTA to ice a child I could never say yes beyond a doubt.

Why? Not because I'm a gamer but because we ALL know that GTA is a game that is influenced by films like Boyz N' The Hood, Colors etc. To blame Rockstar is lame because you'd then have to go after Hollywood and their content.

America still refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of their ''right to bare arms''. Rockstar aren't at fault here since GTA is an adult game the same way you have adult mags like Soldier of Fortune which americans love and relish in. Guns are not made to kill people, are they?

If this case goes anywhere or results in any knee jerk reactions I'd be surprised because once again people are exercising very bad double standards. Violent books, films and music are okay but apparently you can't have violent games, even if you are an law abidding person.

Other muses should be defending the games industry but instead they just sit by, filling their pockets with license money and ever so glad that they are not being targetted this time.

"America still refuses to take responsibility for the consequences of their ''right to bare arms''. Rockstar aren't at fault here since GTA is an adult game the same way you have adult mags like Soldier of Fortune which americans love and relish in. Guns are not made to kill people, are they?"

2nd amendment to the US Constitution, ever heard of that? The right to bear arms.

The fact of the matter is that people kill people, guns are used as a tool to kill people.

Should we outlaw knives, they can kill people too?

More people die from automobiles than guns and knives combined, does that mean we need to outlaw cars?

Go here:
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=7612

That would be the amendment that reads as follows?

This amendment was part of the Bill of Rights - Amendments 1 - 10 of the US Constitution.

The Bill of Rights is a set of rules that originally applied only to the federal government, not to the state governments. This meant that the state governments were entirely at liberty to silence the press, stop people from bearing arms or compel people to bear witness against themselves.

However with the ratification of the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was seen to apply to the state governments. The process of applying these amendments to the state governments was started in 1925 and is known as Incorporation.

To this day, the 2nd amendment has never been Incorporated.

What this means is that the federal government of the USA can not prevent its citizens from bearing arms, but the individual states can.

There actually is no unalienable right for Americans to carry guns, every state has the power to ban guns if they should so wish.

For more details on the US Constitution check out this site where you can read the Constitution and Amendments in full. For details of the Bill of Rights and Incorporation, see this page.

No idea what this has to do with GTA, but I'm sure someone will make the link.

Isn't it funny how summer (slowest gaming season) is lacking games, but its the media's time to say "Hey no news so lets complain about games again!"

Although many articles forget to note: Rockstar makes an assload of money everytime someone gets killed.

Its like the kitty and masterbation poster, but different. If I new how to use photoshop or had any artistic talent I would make one lol. Anyway remember how the Manhunt insident in the UK made sales of the game explode? Same thing happens with GTA: SA. Besides Halo it is the only game that I see steadily selling on the charts due to media coverage of violent crimes that are blamed on it.

And whoever said this is the stuff that happened with Jordons back in the day is brilliant. Thats what I was thinking too. People use to get killed for shoes, leather jackets, bling, and now games are added to that list. I never heard Jordon Apologize for someone catching a bullet due to his expensive ass shoes yet in a few hours Rockstar will have to say their condolences despite having no fault in the matter. Though I think its a small price to pay for na extra 50,000-100,000 games sold. :)

While trying not to go to far into letting your public easily by and own personal arsenals.

America is a place founded with guns like many nations only problem is they have forgotten the difference between remaining vigilant and using caution instead of a little common sense and putting them away when the threat has gone. Media paranoia has blows up any threat around.

It could be said that the right to bear arms is out of date and needs changing but that will nver happen because many see the right as something written by god or something. Such lofty lack of thinking has had America scared of it's own shadow for years and it will continue.

Anyways was I'm not anti american, just feel a lot of their problems could be easily solved if they didn't like money so much.

The saddest thing is the death of a child that had a lot to live for. On top of that is the also sad fat that gun sales will still be high and despite bad press through no fault of their own GTA sales might go up too, for the wrong reason.

Like I said ages ago the traditional media love attacking games. Be it GTA or 25 To Life it will always be negative. It will never be about how great more positive games are.

IMO 25 to Life looked like it was gonna tank. But now with this coverage I wouldn't be surprised if Eidos doubled their advertisement money. Now this unheard of new franchise gets free advertisements thanks to the media.

Yes you kill cops, but the tagline for the game when I read articles was that its a modern day cops and robbers game. You can also kill criminals as well. The game doesn't seem to be promoting being in gangs OR killing cops however thats what the media would rather portray then what the game is actually about.

Why do videogames have to be youth's social battlegrounds? Guess what? They could have easily made a game about cops taking care of gangs... but the reality of videgames is that it lets you do and be anything you want. And I think denying someone the opportunity to be bad in a fictional setting is in no way harmful. Why doesn't the media talk about the ACTUAL thieves worldwide who pirate games all the time. I have yet to hear such a story outside of the gaming media.

I think that these games should continue to get more violent and more realistic and let you play more bad guys... just like its ok for me to see academy award winning movies like Training Day where the story is about a crooked cop. Why is that ok, but if a game version were to be released and no movie version existed then all hell will break loose. F**KIN HYPOCRITS!

That's bullshit. Jordan did not willingly partake in, nor profit from a media that glorifies violence and murder.

Jordan was not a proponent of attitudes that trivialise human suffering , and alienation.

RockStar's part in this is more like that of Nike, who mercilessly and callously marketed a product and a lifestyle to those who could not afford it, but who would... quite literally, kill to be part of it.

And did you ever actually READ the amendment you tout so casually? How many of the people who bear arms are part of a well organised militia that confers that right upon them?



Well, I'd quite like to ram a bowling ball down your dumb f**king (red)neck, so maybe we should ban them too.



You are overlooking the fact that the vast majority of those deaths were accidents, caused by 90% of the population using cars on a daily basis.

While the gun deaths were almost all (95%) intentional, and caused by far fewer people using guns far less frequently.

The instance of deaths per use of a car is a tiny tiny fraction of the number of deaths per use of a gun.

You can make statistics say anything, but what you are really making them say is that you're an asshole.

My God, the humanity of it all...

What a double standard you have...How is Nike more responsible than MJ? AT ANY TIME AFTER IT WAS MADE APPARENT THAT CHILDREN WERE KILLING EACH OTHER OVER HIS SHOES HE COULD HAVE STOPPED, INSTEAD OF PUMPING OUT A NEW MODEL EVERY YEAR... You are expressing perfectly the thoughtless ignorance of the knee jerk American liberal. Your lightning fast reflexes instantly ascribe the worst possible motivations to the evil corporation, while giving the likeable celebrity a free pass, while spewing the most nonsensical feelgood falsehoods, based on your own personal convictions about his character, and not the FACTS. Michael Jordan DID, in fact, profit from the media attention surrounding acts of violence involving his shoes. Michael Jordan, after learning of these acts, and knowing full well that they would not be the last of their kind, willingly continued, in partnership with Nike, to produce and agressively market more products. Rockstar Games to the best of my knowledge has NEVER, NOT ONCE, been a "proponent of attitudes that trivialise human suffering , and alienation.", they make VIDEO GAMES, they are not the Dark Side equivalent of Oddworld Inhabitants, they are not seeking to corrupt the moral fibre of the world by evangelizing senseless violence, they are merely giving the people what the people obviously want... Thats why GTA is a monster franchise, not because of some imaginary agenda you seem to want to saddle them with.

What happened to that little girl had absolutely nothing to do with the content of the game, and everything to do with the culture the game reflects. The game in question could have just as easily been Halo 2 or WarioWare. Notice my choice of words, REFLECTS, to make the claim that GTA somehow promotes a "lifestyle" is patently laughable.

Whats worse though is that as is typical of your ilk, you're a f**king hypocrite, while denouncing the violence real and in game, and the implications that it has on our society, you feel free to use graphically violent language yourself..."ram a bowling ball down your f**king (red)neck", indeed. Maybe you are in need of some serious therapy before you trivialize others suffering and thus become alienated, you t**t.

I remember reading this when it was published.

http://www.chucksconnection.com/articles/ConverseArt08.html



Of course he could. Because he wasn't under any kind of contract whatsoever.



They have repeatedly made games which glorify the worst kinds of violence. Games which blur the boundaries between what is acceptable, and what should be taboo. Games in which credit and kudos is gained by acts of violence. Games which ignore the concept of moral culpability. They have done this purely for profit. How does this make them ANYTHING but a proponent [defn: One who argues in support of something; an advocate] of attitudes which trivialise suffering. If there is some sly irony in their work, it is being missed by the majority of their audience.



So why are they developing and publishing games that do exactly that?



Oh, that's alright then.



It had nothing to do with the content of the game, and everything to do with the culture [that] the game reflects. Now there's contradictory rhetoric if ever I heard it.



Laugh away. But the continual bombardment of kids and adolescents with images that erode their sense of morality and justice is having a toll on our society. You may not like to admit it. That's fine... but why did this guy think that it was acceptable to shower a house with bullets as the result of an argument over 50 bucks of property. Is there not a chance that such behaviour had been represented as acceptable to him by... oh, GTA3:SA, for instance?



Hmmm. You see I wasn't denouncing violence per se. I was denouncing the use of guns. I think violence has its place in society. I just don't think that that place is in almost all popular cultural media.

And my threat, which you have conveniently taken out of context, was to illustrate the inanity of suggesting that any object should be banned because of the possibility of it being used for violence.



Right back at you. With bells, whistles, and a little ribbon. A pink one.

Anyway, can you make yourself clear?

Are you saying that you think that it is right that guns should be freely available? That it is right that morally repugnant acts should be frequently depicted for their entertainment value? And that you do not think that such depiction erodes the taboo surrounding those acts?

Yes I did, and here is the second amendment:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The right of the people, not just the militia, did you see that?



Yes, I am a stupid redneck from Alabama, we're all just a bunch of hicks.
I love it when liberals get mad, their so cute! lol
Preaching tolerance/diversity/acceptance but practicing hypocrisy




People are still dying though, and sometimes cars can be used as weapons!!



All knife deaths are 95% intentional, I think we should ban them to.


http://www.justfacts.com/gun_control.htm

30-35 million owners of hand guns
60-65 million owners of firearms
I don't think even a tenth of the people who own firearms are going around senselessly murdering, or are they, well actually it doesn't matter, ban the guns, all of them, and let the people look to the government as the only people being allowed firearms.


How so?

What about this statistic?
Washington D.C. enacted a virtual ban on handguns in 1976. Between 1976 and 1991, Washington D.C.'s homicide rate rose 200%, while the U.S. rate rose 12%

Does gun control work, no! Good citizens use guns to defend themselves and if there was a gun control good citizens would turn their guns in, and (guess what) criminals wouldn't!

Anyways have fun reading an Ann Coulter article:

http://www.uexpress.com/anncoulter/?uc_full_date=20000421

"IT'S SUNNY TODAY, SO WE NEED GUN CONTROL
The New York Times recently ran an in-depth series on "rampage murder," defined as people who killed multiple victims -- excepting shootings with a "motive," such as robbery. The reporting detail was magnificent if you have an interest in humans gone bad. (Moreover, if you have a taste for black humor, you can't do much better than psycho killers.)

But when it comes to analysis, the Times has an unbounded capacity to ignore its own meticulous reporting. The Times editorial page is like a Ouija board that has only three answers, no matter what the question. The answers are: higher taxes, more restrictions on political speech and stricter gun control. Consequently, the paper's editorial comment on the rampage murder series was this non sequitur: "That is why the nation needs tighter gun control laws for everyone."

The demand for gun control was damned peculiar, inasmuch as the Times own reporting established pretty clearly that there might be a cause apart from the easy availability of guns. For one thing, as the Times noted, "these killings remain extremely rare, much less than 1 percent of all homicides." So, first of all, it's difficult to explain why more than 99 percent of people with easy accessibility to guns don't engage in rampage killings, if the problem were the availability of guns.

See if you can spot a pattern here, taken from the Times' own statement of the facts.

Long before James Davis shot up his former workplace and killed two of his bosses, he had somehow managed to earn the nickname "Psycho."

Killer Jeffrey Wallace explained to the Times that he had been forced to open fire in a Key West bar because the bar was the epicenter of an organized-crime drug and prostitution ring with ties to satanism, President Clinton and Garrison Keillor, host of the public radio program "Prairie Home Companion." (I was with him until he got to that Keillor guy. Plus the organized crime ring is run out of the Oval Office.)

Before murdering three people in a shopping mall, Sylvia Seegrist was known to take steam baths at the local health club in full camouflage gear. In her crucial outer-envelope scribblings in a missive to the Times recently, Ms. Seegrist said her killings were a form of public service. (According to the Times, Ms. Seegrist was also wont to "spout a tangle of theories about nuclear weapons, energy shortages and famine" -- not that I think any parallels should be drawn to the vice president.)

Another rampage killer, Robert Benjamin Smith, who shot several women and children in a beauty salon, remarked in a letter to the Times: "The sole thing I have learned worth the telling is the ironclad necessity of retaining control over one's essential bodily fluids." (And there will be (BEGIN ITALICS)no(END ITALICS) fighting in the War Room!)

I'm no expert, but it seems to me another conclusion might be that these people are crazy. Probably from the fluoridation.

Though the Times was not able to hide the little detail about rampage killers being complete loony birds, the paper did rather boldly lie about a recent surge of rampage killings, stating: The "incidence of these rampage killings appears to have increased (in the past decade), according to a separate computer analysis by the Times of nearly 25 years of homicide data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation."

In fact, according to a somewhat more rigorous study by famed economists John Lott and William Landes (last quoted favorably in the Times for praising Clinton appointee to the Supreme Court Stephen Breyer) "the number (of rampage killings) is not changing much over time." In a letter to the Times pointing this out in detail, Lott noted numerous other false statements in the Times' rampage-killing series, such as the paper's claim that it had excluded robbery-related murders.

Lott continued: "The biggest problem is that many crimes during earlier decades are missed and this gives readers the false impression that these events are occurring more frequently nowadays." In case you're not sure whom to believe here, let me make you blush the way I did when Lott noted this interesting fact about the Times' scientific study, which I had completely missed. When I talked to him, he asked me if I hadn't thought it odd that the Times found precisely 100 rampage killings over the past 50 years? Not 102, not 97. Exactly 100 rampage killings in precisely 50 years. (Also the Times reporter admitted the fudging to Lott over the telephone.)

This might not be a big deal, except that I always get a little suspicious when I'm being lied to. My assumption is that only by claiming that rampage killings have suddenly increased -- falsely as it turns out -- can even the Times justify its demand for stupid counterintuitive emergency measures like raising taxes -- whoops! -- I mean tighter gun control."

Please remember that the US Constitution, and the Amendments to it, do not grant any rights or freedoms to the people of the United States. Rather the US Constitution limits the way that the federal government can govern the people of the US.

Each state in the USA has its own set of rules and regulations that are quite separate from those that the federal government has.

As the laws of the US and the individual states stand now any state could legally impose a ban on the keeping, collecting and bearing of arms of any variety, including guns.

As the laws in most of the US stand today, a housing association could ban guns from the houses or blocks they manage.

There is no un-removable right for American citizens to keep or bear arms, only a constitutional promise that the federal government, alone, can not remove the right to keep or bear arms.

For more information on this subject, I'll recommend this site again.