Boy Shoots Grandmother

When I was an 8-year-old child, (a time I can now, depressingly classify as well over a decade ago), I remember that my father owned an air pistol. It was a purely air-powered gun, capable of firing one small pellet at a time, which could put a small hole in plant pot and merely dent anything made of even the thinnest metal. Regardless of this, I was overwhelmingly curious about it and wanted nothing more than to try it out. However it was kept in a place I couldn’t reach and was repeatedly told that I wasn’t allowed anywhere near it.

This I can only assume is because I was an 8-year-old child, who in all likelihood would have shot himself in the face by accident and, if not blowing his brain out, at least maiming himself with it in some way.

I only bring this up in light of a news story that’s come out of Louisiana of an 8-year-old shooting his grandmother after playing grand theft auto.

Apparently the game was to blame for the child’s behaviour, as after playing it he shot his grandmother.

So, a big point to take into account before I launch into this; I don’t understand gaming. I don’t get it, I don’t know why it’s such a big part of some peoples’ lives. I get that most games have a storyline running through them, but in terms of the ones I’ve played (those being Halo and indeed GTA) I really don’t see any difference in what you’re required to do differently as a gamer in terms of story progression. In basic terms the story’s being told like film and every once in a while you come in do exactly the same thing you’ve been doing since day one. There’s no real difference in what you do with the controls in Halo and what you do with the controls in any of it’s one-million sequels. Now generally when I voice this opinion around gamers, they look at me like I just told them that I like to kill domestic pets and knit them into a settee. More than once I’ve been told that I don’t know what I’m talking about and that I’m simply opposed to interactive storytelling. These excuses for me not liking something they love have regularly been a source of remarkable frustration for me and have more often than not caused me to concurrently resent the whole gaming industry for the condescending individuals who sometimes crop up in it’s fan base.

With this in mind, I would like all everyone to take into account the seriousness of what I’m about to say.

Grand Theft Auto (whichever one he was playing) had nothing to do with this child shooting his grandmother. Children are inquisitive and impulsive and if not given firm and clear guidance will act aggressively and without clear and proper thought. That’s why I wasn’t allowed to even get near my father’s air pistol and that’s why this kid should have never been allowed anywhere near a gun. This is story is a prime example of negligent parenting. Even if we assume the child had been told he wasn’t allowed to use the gun, why was it even in a place where he could get it to it? He could have been told that it could hurt and kill people, but why would a child this young think through the consequences of firing a gun?

The child is in the care of his parents – why? They have proved themselves unfit for the task of raising him.

But no, you know what’s going to happen now, Rockstar (who make GTA) are going to have to make a statement saying that they are very sorry and aggrieved for the death of the boy’s grandmother and a lot of people are going to start calling for a ban on violent video games again. And all the while, these two incompetents are going to be free to keep leaving firearms about the place for children to play with.

I don't like gaming (and the full reasons for that can fill up another full blog post at some point) but it is not to blame for this tragedy. The fact that this chid has been left back in the care of these people, who left their gun lying around where someone who could not be expected to understand how dangerous it was, is frightening and a travesty.

Stand your ground…but make sure you kill someone.

So George Zimmerman was found not guilty of second degree murder, after shooting teenager Trayvon Martin, in what a jury found was self-defence. Now I’m not going to criticise the reasoning or try to disassemble the arguments of either defence or prosecution in that case. But what I am going to criticise is the fact that the stand your ground (self-defense) law which he relied on seems to only be clear cut, if you kill someone.

The case of Marissa Alexander, as reported by CBS on the 12 of May of this year, shows that if you fire a gun at someone and intentionally miss, stand your ground is not an available defence. To give some background, Ms Alexander had taken out a protective order against her husband, whom she alleged was physically abusive. When he entered her home and began allegedly acting in a way that caused her to fear for her life, she got hold of a gun and fired warning shots in the hope it would stop him.

She was handed a 20-year sentence for her heinous crime.

Reasons that this is stupid:

Her husband was in violation of a protective order. He shouldn’t have been there in the first place. Why does a man who is technically trespassing, not qualify as a threat for the purposes of self-defense? Why is afforded the protection of the law when there was a specific order in place, intended to protect the defendant in this case?

You could say, as some have, that discharging a firearm without the intention of hitting a specific target is more dangerous than aiming it at someone. If you’re shooting at someone (and can aim effectively) you at least know where the bullets are  going.

This would be a valid argument, if Ms Alexander had inadvertently killed or injured a passer-by or someone else’s properly. But she didn’t. To say that she could have, makes the assumption that cases cannot be assessed on their individual merits. A plane could have crashed into the house before she fired the gun, a ninja could have leapt from the roof and cut her husband’s head off. If you’re talking about what could have happened, you’re dealing with a set of potentially unlimited possibilities.

Now the big one; the difference with the Zimmerman case.

The Zimmerman case is later verdict, only being reported in the last few days, however, the core concept of the two cases would seem to be the same. The defendant feared for their life and discharged a firearm in appreciation of this fear. The difference, Mr Zimmerman, killed the person who caused him this fear. Now I don’t want to get into the issue of whether or not he genuinely feared for his life. This isn't a critique of his case, more an examination of the stand your ground defence.

This tells us that the laws on self-defence in Florida are apparently easier to apply, when someone’s dead. If Ms Alexander had killed her husband, then logically (based on the core concepts of her case and Mr Zimmerman’s) she would have been found not guilty. The conclusion I can draw from that is that one of these verdicts makes absolutely no sense.

To add to that the only advice I would give to Florida residents is if you fear for your life and have a gun, by all means shoot, but for god’s sake, make sure you kill someone, else you’ll end up in prison.