I wasn’t sure which forum to post this on. I actually have kind of a factual question about it. On the other hand, merely posting the story is practically an act of RO in itself, making the Pit sound like an inviting spot. I compromised on GD in the realization that the topic is of the sort that tends to lead toward debate.
A 17 year old shot both his parents, killing his mom and wounding his dad, because they took away his copy of Halo 3.
The kid was tried as an adult and found guilty.
But apparently during the sentencing the judge said “I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents they would be dead forever.”
My question is, WTF?
To elaboarate on the question, does anyone know any details about the case that would make it plausible that the kid would not understand this? And then, given that the kid didn’t understand it, how could he be guilty of murder? (I guess intent to temporarily kill is just as much intent to kill as would be intent to permanently kill. Is that it?)
Also, I discovered something about myself while reading that story. It is this: I don’t think I’d forgive my kid if he killed my wife.
Unless the kid was mentally handicapped, I find it hard to swallow the judge’s reasoning. My 5-year-old knows that dead is dead and her hamster’s not coming back. A fully-functioning 17-year-old should know that as well.
Agreed. Most people with functional brains realize at an early age (earlier than the anti-gaming crowd wants to admit) that there’s reality and fantasy, and ne’er the twain shall meet. And they’re fully capable of knowing which is which. (I recall hearing about a study asking young kids what the scariest thing on TV was. The answer was the nightly news. Why? Because it’s real.)
For a young kid this reasoning might slide, but a teenager, almost adult? If we can try a 13-year-old as an adult for horrible crimes, why would we make excuses for a (presumably normal) 17-year-old.
I think my head is going numb just thinking about this.
Joining the kid must be mentally handicapped (and I’d say severely handicapped at that) crowd to not realize what shooting his parents meant. I see nothing to indicate that this kid is that dysfunctional.
At age 17 anyone easily understands the difference between a game and reality. As noted above a 5 year-old gets this. He is a murderer, pure and simple and that judge is nuts.
Ugh. The judge is perhaps trying to get this kid off the hook at the expense of video games. There are many outspoken pundits that blame massacres on the influence of violent games, and the judge could be one of them. He is willing to proclaim this kid’s innocence in hopes of increased scrutiny and censorship of controversial games that encourage violence.
Disregard my last post in which I state that the judge was getting him off the hook. The kid was found guilty, but I’m not sure why the judge would say something to perhaps justify the kid’s actions.
Maybe I’m belaboring the point, but I don’t find it inconceivable that if the judge says something extraordinary about the defendant, it might be because he actually knows something about the defendant that can’t be inferred from his vital statistics alone.
The judge is quoted as saying, “I firmly believe that Daniel Petric had no idea at the time he hatched this plot that if he killed his parents they would be dead forever.”
The judge’s belief should not enter in to it. Was it proven or in evidence in any way whatsoever? We do not have enough information but I suspect if Daniel was mentally handicapped it’d have been noted in the story.
There is just no way a fully functioning 17 year old would be clueless of the difference between shooting his parents and shooting aliens in a video game. Even a particularly dim 17 year old would know this. Further it states that Daniel planned the attack for awhile and stole his dad’s key to get the gun and his Halo copy. So he thought about this. It was not a spur of the moment thing that he did in a rage.
I agree with whoever it was above that suggested the judge may be trying to push an agenda aimed at stopping (or diminishing) video games because it is almost as hard to think the judge is as clueless as he thinks this kid is.
Ditto. It sounds like he’s trying to find a way to blame it on video games to me (someone always does when something like this happens). WF, you seem like you think the judge knew the kid outside of court–I suspect if that were the case he wouldn’t be allowed to preside over the trial.
There was an interesting remark posted on the comments section below the article. It read (grammatical errors included):
Now, this person could very well have no idea of the kid’s upbringing, but it may help shed light on the nature of this boy. In no way shape or form am I trying to defend the boy’s actions, but he may have been so disillusioned by his fanatical upbringing that, perhaps, he honestly believed his parents would come back - even in another shape or form. Who knows? I’m just speculating.
However, I do know that when a belief is ingrained in one’s head from a young age, coupled with over-protective, sheltering parents who cut off a child from the outside world, there’s a good chance that this could influence the way he or she perceives reality. This could have been the case here.
All in all, though, more details about his upbringing are necessary.
No, I think the judge knew him in court. Surely in the course of presiding over the trial, the judge would naturally learn much more about the defendant than we can get from reading a short news article.
My take on it is that the judge ruled the kid was guilty because, at the time he committed the murder, he knew and understood that once he did it, his parents would be dead.
That they failed to respawn, and the kid expected them to, is another matter entirely.
Another in the continuing series of “why can’t it be both?” issues: he murdered his parents, with full knowledge of what he was doing, and he is a complete and total nutjob.
That’s the impression I got. In my above post, I mentioned the boy’s upbringing as possible justification for the shooting.
OTOH, games like Halo 3 have players controlling a character on the screen that dies or kills other characters with no real consequences. Also in these games, especially multiplayer, the killing is fast and frantic. There are “re-spawn” points where, after dying, you appear seconds later, ready to rejoin the fray. Perhaps he thought his parents would re-spawn?
This reminds of me a video clip featuring a character known as FPS Doug. In it, he plays the game Counter-Strike, a first person shooter like Halo. He mentions that it’s hard for him to hold down a job, and also considers joining the Army. However, in comedic fashion, he states, “What if I get lag out there? I’m dead! Also, I heard there are no re-spawn points in RL [real life].”
Yes, the clip was meant to be a joke, but I think some kids have trouble differentiating between fantasy and reality. It’s sad.
Well, his Dad was an Assemblies of God minister. I’ve heard of some wacky AoG’s out there BUT by & large, AoGs are not isolated cultic compounds full of abuse & brainwashing. We definitely do not teach immediate resurrection upon death.
Ok, for the sake of argument let’s assume the kid actually thought his parents would re-spawn.
That would make him insane and his insanity defense was rejected.
But let’s assume he thought this. Shooting his parents would be a very temporary solution to his problems. He’d shoot them, his parents would respawn and now they’d be majorly pissed off. Surely the kid understands physical pain and could grok that getting shot in the head would be unpleasant. Those people would come back rather upset about taking one between the eyes and having to run back home from the respawn point.
In short, you’d have to be flat out insane, as in completely divorced from reality, to believe life worked like the above and the court explicitly rejected the kid’s insanity defense.
No, they don’t. This is a moronic thing to even consider unless the kid was mentally deficient or abused in some way. Since there’s no proof that he was, he’s just a deranged fuckhead that will be spending a very long time in jail, where he belongs.