16 year-old boy attacks parents over . . . Halo 3

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

He was perfectly sane, he told them to shut their eyes, so he could execute them. He knew he was going to do it. He wanted to do it.

I know he wasn't insane. I was just responding to Mask Collector saying that she'd never kill her parents even if she was crazy by pointing out that, if she really was crazy, she wouldn't think twice.

Originally Posted by John

What, exactly, is justice?

Justice is giving some their fair due.

Most murderers look like very personable people.

It's not hard to sort through the thousands of pictures that inevitably get taken of them to find one that makes them look bad. Most news sources have people who do that as their sole job.

I haven't noticed a senator or a celebrity looking like a murderer in one of their pictures : /.

Doesn't tell you anything about his sanity, just that he was still reasonably coherent, which most insane people are.

Many murderers are completely sane.

How does one "deserve" anything?

One deserves something through their actions, if one commits a crime, one deserves punishment, if one does a stellar job at work, one deserves a raise. But deservedness is administered through the court in the form of justice.

Really? But he wasn't old enough to drink, or vote.

That doesn't really matter.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Justice is giving some their fair due.

What is "fair" is relative. What is "efficient" or "inefficient" isn't.

Removing a perfectly usable resource is inefficient.

I haven't noticed a senator or a celebrity looking like a murderer in one of their pictures : /.

Many murderers are completely sane.

Whether one is sane or not doesn't affect the need to administer death.

But deservedness is administered through the court in the form of justice.

Many people believe the courts are corrupt. This goes back to the idea that "fairness" or "justice" are relative, and thus don't matter. What matters is what will produce general benefits, and I don't see how killing criminals produces them.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

Justice is giving some their fair due.

Alright, but what is the purpose of justice?

I haven't noticed a senator or a celebrity looking like a murderer in one of their pictures : /.

Not just murderers. Pictures of them looking stupid or looking oddly thoughtful. Looking cowardly or looking brave. People are hired to comb through video and pictures to find stills that make people look the way the article-writer wants them to look.

Many murderers are completely sane.

Indeed.

One deserves something through their actions, if one commits a crime, one deserves punishment,

Does one, though? There are plenty of people the world over who are gay and fear for their lives because of it. Do they deserve the death penalty?

I'm not saying murder is right, good, or that it shouldn't be punished. I'm just noting that "committing a crime means you deserve punishment" doesn't really hold up.

People are punished for doing crimes, yes, and most of the time they should be, but they don't "deserve" it. The entire point of the justice system is to prevent crimes. It isn't there to give people what they're due, or to make people hurt for hurting others. It uses those things as tools towards the greater end of preventing crime.

The instant someone says that someone else deserves to be punished for their actions they're throwing that goal of justice out the window and focusing on the far more petty goal of satiating blood lust.

That doesn't really matter.

No? The law has ruled that he isn't old enough to make informed decisions about voting or drinking, and only very limited ones when it comes to driving.

Why, exactly, is he only capable of seeing the consequences of his actions when he does bad things, but is far too young to understand what he's doing when it comes to neutral, good, or useful ones?

Originally Posted by John

Alright, but what is the purpose of justice?

The purpose of justice in a society is to provide punishment or reimbursement through a court of law.

Not just murderers. Pictures of them looking stupid or looking oddly thoughtful. Looking cowardly or looking brave. People are hired to comb through video and pictures to find stills that make people look the way the article-writer wants them to look.

Fair enough.

Does one, though? There are plenty of people the world over who are gay and fear for their lives because of it. Do they deserve the death penalty?

I'm not saying murder is right, good, or that it shouldn't be punished. I'm just noting that "committing a crime means you deserve punishment" doesn't really hold up.

People are punished for doing crimes, yes, and most of the time they should be, but they don't "deserve" it. The entire point of the justice system is to prevent crimes. It isn't there to give people what they're due, or to make people hurt for hurting others. It uses those things as tools towards the greater end of preventing crime.

The instant someone says that someone else deserves to be punished for their actions they're throwing that goal of justice out the window and focusing on the far more petty goal of satiating blood lust.

And here is where one must draw the line between vengeance and justice. Your right, some laws are unjust, and the justice administered upon unfair or unjust laws is often times, not real justice.

If someone commits a crime against society, society must judge the situation and act accordingly to administer the correct punishment. What is just, or correct is completely subjective to those who gaze upon the issue.

No? The law has ruled that he isn't old enough to make informed decisions about voting or drinking, and only very limited ones when it comes to driving.

Why, exactly, is he only capable of seeing the consequences of his actions when he does bad things, but is far too young to understand what he's doing when it comes to neutral, good, or useful ones?

I never said he was too young to understand other choices, my point was that he was able to comprehend his actions, he knew what he wanted to do and did it. Whether he passes an age requirement for something matters not.

What is "fair" is relative. What is "efficient" or "inefficient" isn't.

Removing a perfectly usable resource is inefficient.

By recourse you are referring to them doing hard labor yes? If so, I agree with you. But aren't there problems and reasons why we no longer do that? As I recall we had chain gangs.

As for the picture, those aren't 'murderer' eyes to me. It most reminds me of that rodent who looked back over his shoulder at you .

Many people believe the courts are corrupt. This goes back to the idea that "fairness" or "justice" are relative, and thus don't matter. What matters is what will produce general benefits, and I don't see how killing criminals produces them.

The prospect of execution is cheaper than for example, life imprison, it removes a dangerous individual from society, and doesn't waste as much money. However, the way our current system is set up, it can spend more money, but reforming the system is a whole different topic.

What makes fairness and justice not matter?

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

By recourse you are referring to them doing hard labor yes? If so, I agree with you. But aren't there problems and reasons why we no longer do that? As I recall we had chain gangs.

Putting prisoners to work is better than just keeping them alive for nothing (Life imprisonment) or just throwing them away (Death penalty).

The prospect of execution is cheaper than for example, life imprison, it removes a dangerous individual from society, and doesn't waste as much money. However, the way our current system is set up, it can spend more money, but reforming the system is a whole different topic.

Not really, even without our current standards. "Ethically" putting prisoners to death is an expensive process, and it'll probably be more beneficial in the long run just to put them to work.

What makes fairness and justice not matter?

They are completely relative and open to differing perceptions, whereas what is efficient and what is inefficient is generally standard.

Originally Posted by Twilight Wolf

Don't know where he got that information.

Cortana, obviously.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

The purpose of justice in a society is to provide punishment or reimbursement through a court of law.

I'd disagree. At best, those are tools that the Judicial system uses, but they are not it's end.

And here is where one must draw the line between vengeance and justice. Your right, some laws are unjust, and the justice administered upon unfair or unjust laws is often times, not real justice.

If someone commits a crime against society, society must judge the situation and act accordingly to administer the correct punishment. What is just, or correct is completely subjective to those who gaze upon the issue.

But justice for its own sake is, I'd argue, mostly vengeance.

I never said he was too young to understand other choices, my point was that he was able to comprehend his actions, he knew what he wanted to do and did it. Whether he passes an age requirement for something matters not.

My point is that the law has decided that he's incapable of making informed decisions about most things in life (he can't even sign a contract) but that this somehow goes away and he becomes a mature adult when it comes to crime?

That's a double standard, at best.

This kid's just completely crazy.

Originally Posted by Zachary C

Well, this boy named Daniel Patric murdered his mother, and shot his father, as a retaliation to them storing away his Halo 3 game because they saw it too violent for the 16 year-old..

I guess they were right then.

Originally Posted by Andross

There is no such thing as justice, only efficiency and inefficiency.

Killing a person will always result in the removal of a potentially useable resource, which is always inefficient. One of the few more socialist elements that I would agree with is some form of public work service (Although minimal.)

Isn't it highly likely for him to kill others too?

Originally Posted by John

What, exactly, is justice?


Most murderers look like very personable people.

It's not hard to sort through the thousands of pictures that inevitably get taken of them to find one that makes them look bad. Most news sources have people who do that as their sole job.


Eyes, in fact, tell you absolutely nothing about a person.

Studies have been done. You get supposed experts in reading people by their eyes, put them in a room with a random person that they know nothing about (but who has been trained to resist cold reading) let them talk for however long is needed, then get the experts opinion.

They're no better than chance at telling you anything about the person.

^True.

Originally Posted by Andross

Originally Posted by John

I'd disagree. At best, those are tools that the Judicial system uses, but they are not it's end.

What do you think it's end is instead?

But justice for its own sake is, I'd argue, mostly vengeance.

I disagree, vengeance is obviously, vengeful, whilst justice is not vengeful. When Justice becomes vengeful, it is no longer justice, it is vengeance. It may have brought correct justice to said felon, but through acting vengeful you have thrown your own concepts of justice askew.

My point is that the law has decided that he's incapable of making informed decisions about most things in life (he can't even sign a contract) but that this somehow goes away and he becomes a mature adult when it comes to crime?

That's a double standard, at best.

Just because the law says he can't doesn't mean he is incapable of doing so.

Originally Posted by Andross

Putting prisoners to work is better than just keeping them alive for nothing (Life imprisonment) or just throwing them away (Death penalty).

I agree with you, but as far as I know, we don't do this, otherwise I would be more than happy to put them to work.

Not really, even without our current standards. "Ethically" putting prisoners to death is an expensive process, and it'll probably be more beneficial in the long run just to put them to work.

Yes, I was comparing to life imprisonment, as I said above, to my knowledge, we don't put prisoners to work.

They are completely relative and open to differing perceptions, whereas what is efficient and what is inefficient is generally standard.

Yes, efficiency and inefficiency is relatively not subjective. However, given the choices of life imprisonment and the death penalty, I would choose the death penalty.

This is yet another example of video games taking the fall for bad parenting and plain stupidity. Was the boy violent? Yes. Did Halo 3 make him that way? No.

A kid like this probably showed signs of having some sort of emotional problems well before buying Halo 3. The parents should have picked up on this. The boy had issues; aside from acting as the trigger mechanism, the game had nothing to do with it.

This is all just an example of how the media wrongfully thinks video games make people violent. If a 16 year old boy had killed thier parents because they took away his car keys, his cell phone, or some other item, this likely would have only made local news.

Originally Posted by Flames of Valor

What do you think it's end is instead?

To keep society running by deterring crime.

Punishment is not necessarily needed to deter crime, though it is one of the better tools currently at our disposal.

If it was possible to, somehow, prevent crime without punishment, I'd be all for it.

Just because the law says he can't doesn't mean he is incapable of doing so.

Then you'd argue that the voting/drinking/consent/adulthood age should be lowered?

Originally Posted by John

To keep society running by deterring crime.

Punishment is not necessarily needed to deter crime, though it is one of the better tools currently at our disposal.

If it was possible to, somehow, prevent crime without punishment, I'd be all for it.

Well, I suppose this is where you and I disagree, or rather, I compound what you think what I think as I elaborate on the subject more in my own mind.

To me, justice is giving each their due, but the punishment being used for justice is also being used as a deterrent, like you said. So you are right when you said that they use justice to discourage crime, however, that is not solely what they are using it for.

Then you'd argue that the voting/drinking/consent/adulthood age should be lowered?

I would probably only agree to voting. The other things have many different issues entwined with them. If you want to know you could send me a PM so I don't spam up this thread with off topic issues.

This is yet another example of video games taking the fall for bad parenting and plain stupidity. Was the boy violent? Yes. Did Halo 3 make him that way? No.

A kid like this probably showed signs of having some sort of emotional problems well before buying Halo 3. The parents should have picked up on this. The boy had issues; aside from acting as the trigger mechanism, the game had nothing to do with it.

This is all just an example of how the media wrongfully thinks video games make people violent. If a 16 year old boy had killed thier parents because they took away his car keys, his cell phone, or some other item, this likely would have only made local news.

I see.

Then, I guess in America, kids kill their parents everyday - that's why it's such an un-newsworthy event.

Oh please, I don't think ANY Western country could treat such an act as not something extraordinary. Your statement is like someone in denial over video games.

They ARE getting more violent. They ARE a fictionalisation of a violent world, and it DOES glorify killing, fighting etc. It's up to the gamer to distinguish that there are limits of the game world, and bringing what happened in fiction into reality is dangerous and idiotic.

Obviously, this guy failed to do that. But these games ARE violent - and if they are, and we like playing them, it means that subconsciously, we like violence too, and this is just feeding that aggression.

~read~

Originally Posted by The Readeemer

It's up to the gamer to distinguish that there are limits of the game world, and bringing what happened in fiction into reality is dangerous and idiotic.

Obviously, this guy failed to do that. But these games ARE violent - and if they are, and we like playing them, it means that subconsciously, we like violence too, and this is just feeding that aggression.

I am not denying they are violent, but I'm saying someone like this shouldn't have been playing them in the first place. I'm betting this guy had some sort of emotional or mental problems; had he been more normal, he never would have failed to separate reality from fiction.

First off, a mentally sound person is unlikely to kill anyone unless they lose thier temper and kill in the heat of the moment (ex. coming home and finding your wife in someone else's arms), or if there is a reward that they feel is worth killing for (ex. killing your wife for insurance money). Even then, they will probably deeply regret it, which this guy shows no evidence of doing. Obviously, this wasn't one of those cases. Since he not only killed his parents, but killed them over an incredibly trivial reason, my conclusion is that something was seriously wrong with this kid before he ever touched the game.

Video games will never cause someone to become violent, they can only feed the violence that is already there.

I am not denying they are violent, but I'm saying someone like this shouldn't have been playing them in the first place. I'm betting this guy had some sort of emotional or mental problems; had he been more normal, he never would have failed to separate reality from fiction.

First off, a mentally sound person is unlikely to kill anyone unless they lose thier temper and kill in the heat of the moment (ex. coming home and finding your wife in someone else's arms), or if there is a reward that they feel is worth killing for (ex. killing your wife for insurance money). Even then, they will probably deeply regret it, which this guy shows no evidence of doing. Obviously, this wasn't one of those cases. Since he not only killed his parents, but killed them over an incredibly trivial reason, my conclusion is that something was seriously wrong with this kid before he ever touched the game.

Video games will never cause someone to become violent, they can only feed the violence that is already there.

Wow. So now we must have screening processes for who buys video games? Sheesh. Looks like I won't get access to soul Calibur IV for a long time, given my mental state.

Seriously. The dude sounded pretty normal before he touched Halo. He was snowboarding, head of a Bible quiz team, it sounded like his relationship with his mother was good - he's probably, what would you call it? "Normal"?

And then he starts playing like crazy. And he gets like this. Now, let's not start John off on "correlation does not imply causation" again, or my head will hurt, but just on THIS specific case, there would appear to be some link between his playing and suddenly becoming a violent idiot.

You said he felt no remorse. Read the article and the links again. I'm pretty sure he was saying something like

Petric was allowed to visit his son in jail over the past year. He said his son has apologized. "Dad, I'm so sorry for what I did to Mom, to you and to the family," Daniel said, according to his father. "I'm so glad you are alive."

Of course, the father may be lying...

Mind, is the "no remorse" thing just from the fact that you think this guy might look like a stoned druggie? 'cause, as John put earlier, that's not really the best way to judge a character...

And so, you're pretty much saying "this guy was already f***ed up before he touched Halo 3, and we should never have let him come into contact with it". Well - who'll stop him? Who's going to judge that beforehand, this guy had a psychiatric problem? That his head was screwed on the wrong way around? From what I've read, the only thing that made him like this was the game. Yeah - perhaps his parents should have stopped him earlier.

Doesn't change the fact that, in this specific case, it would seem that the game is what caused him to become a blithering, mindless murderer.

And I still find this comment rather hard to believe:

This is all just an example of how the media wrongfully thinks video games make people violent. If a 16 year old boy had killed thier parents because they took away his car keys, his cell phone, or some other item, this likely would have only made local news.

Just for everyone to have a bit more info, Here's the Judge's comments,

The Court must enter a finding of guilty on the counts set forth in the indictment. That being said, it’s my firm belief as a human being - and not as a jurist - that Daniel does suffer from a serious defect of the mind.

This Court’s opinion is that we don’t know enough about these video games. In this particular case, not so much the violence of the game because I believe in the Halo 3, what it amounts to is a contest to see who can shoot the most aliens who attack.

It’s my firm belief that after a while the same physiological responses occur that occur in the ingestion of some drugs. And I believe that an addiction to these games can do the same thing. The dopamine surge, the stimulation of the nucleus accumbens - the same as an addiction. Such that when you stop, your brain won’t stand for it.

The other dangerous thing about these games, in my opinion, is that when these changes occur, they occur in an environment that is delusional. Because you can shoot these aliens, and they’re there again the next day. You have to shoot them again. And 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.

Oh, and lastly - your comments that the media have wrongly seen video games as a cause of the act violence contradict your comment that video games act as a trigger for acting violently. I was just wondering which one as the statement you were arguing.

Cheers
~read~

Originally Posted by The Readeemer

Oh, and lastly - your comments that the media have wrongly seen video games as a cause of the act violence contradict your comment that video games act as a trigger for acting violently. I was just wondering which one as the statement you were arguing.

I am saying that taking away Halo 3 was what caused him to become violent. Halo 3 itself did not.

Irony FTW. Anyways it's the parents fault for letting their kid play this so much instead of so'emthing else.

I am saying that taking away Halo 3 was what caused him to become violent. Halo 3 itself did not.

This is yet another example of video games taking the fall for bad parenting and plain stupidity. Was the boy violent? Yes. Did Halo 3 make him that way? No.

A kid like this probably showed signs of having some sort of emotional problems well before buying Halo 3. The parents should have picked up on this. The boy had issues; aside from acting as the trigger mechanism, the game had nothing to do with it.

So the parents taking away Halo 3 was bad parenting. The parents letting him play Halo 3 was also bad parenting. The two situations are kinda paradoxical.

~read~

A kid once commited suicide over RuneScape.
His account got hacked.

But yeah, It happens more lately.
I think that children that suicide over a game are missing Logic in their life.

Thank God that nobody here suicides over such stupid things.
Even better, Thank God nobody here suicides.