Post by SnakeYukin on Jun 16, 2009 13:22:08 GMT -5
So we all know that games usually get the rap for being the reason of someone going out and killing someone. Now, if we were talking about Gladiator games back in Rome in the good old days, then that would be completely understandable. However, in this case, which some of you might have heard about, the game is actually the reason for the shooting.
Anyways, in 2007 Daniel Petric at the age of sixteen killed his mom and attempted to kill his father because they took away his game (Halo 3) because he bought it against their will. So, instead of pleading to his parents to get the game back or even stealing it back, he had the idea to possibly go Halo on them. He got his fathers 9mm handgun (sure he gets the gun instead of the game) and told his parents to close their eyes because he had a "surprise" for them. His father, who was a minister, survived, but his mom didn't.
So, when his day finally comes to stand trial, his lawyer pulls out the all too common card of "it's the games fault because he played it so much that he differentiate between real and virtual life." If only this type of excuse could be used for different crimes, like "The only reason he killed and ate those people is because he couldn't differentiate between animals it's alright to kill and eat and humans who are animals as well because the way he saw it: food is food."
Of course, he did get convicted of the crimes (who saw that coming) and just recently his sentence was handed down. He will get twenty-three years to life with the possibility of parole after twenty-three years: as compared to what the DA wanted, which was life without the chance of parole. For the reason for the shorter term is because the judge took the game into consideration for his judgment.
Personally, I believe he probably would have gotten off with manslaughter instead of murder if the defense went with the plea that the defendant had anger problems. Seriously, look at the facts, he got pissed off so much because his parents took his game that he decided to shoot them. That sounds like anger problems which could have, literally, lead to a manslaughter conviction instead of murder. But no, he had to try to get him off by a defense that has failed all too many times.
Only thing for sure is he won't be playing Halo 3 again for a while.
Article
Anyways, in 2007 Daniel Petric at the age of sixteen killed his mom and attempted to kill his father because they took away his game (Halo 3) because he bought it against their will. So, instead of pleading to his parents to get the game back or even stealing it back, he had the idea to possibly go Halo on them. He got his fathers 9mm handgun (sure he gets the gun instead of the game) and told his parents to close their eyes because he had a "surprise" for them. His father, who was a minister, survived, but his mom didn't.
So, when his day finally comes to stand trial, his lawyer pulls out the all too common card of "it's the games fault because he played it so much that he differentiate between real and virtual life." If only this type of excuse could be used for different crimes, like "The only reason he killed and ate those people is because he couldn't differentiate between animals it's alright to kill and eat and humans who are animals as well because the way he saw it: food is food."
Of course, he did get convicted of the crimes (who saw that coming) and just recently his sentence was handed down. He will get twenty-three years to life with the possibility of parole after twenty-three years: as compared to what the DA wanted, which was life without the chance of parole. For the reason for the shorter term is because the judge took the game into consideration for his judgment.
Personally, I believe he probably would have gotten off with manslaughter instead of murder if the defense went with the plea that the defendant had anger problems. Seriously, look at the facts, he got pissed off so much because his parents took his game that he decided to shoot them. That sounds like anger problems which could have, literally, lead to a manslaughter conviction instead of murder. But no, he had to try to get him off by a defense that has failed all too many times.
Only thing for sure is he won't be playing Halo 3 again for a while.
Article
