Grand Theft Auto & Thai Cab Drivers - A Killer Combo?

Some news in today from far away Thailand on an 18 year old man who stabbed a cab driver to death. Apparently his inspiration for the ‘bungled’ crime was the computer game ‘Grand Theft Auto’.

The police investigator reports that the killer said that: “…he wanted to find out if it was as easy in real life to rob a taxi as it was in the game.”

The Sky News source is here

and the ‘Yahoo’ news source is here.

My immediate reaction to this sort of thing is generally “what a complete fucking dick”. Followed by a generic, “he should serve life, hard time, in servitude / detention etc”.

Thailand have gone to two complete extremes in their reaction. Which rather reminds me of what Britain would look like if the Daily Mail were to run the country. The Thais have managed to react with a greater versatility and speed of reflex than any computer gamer could possibly muster, on any game out in the market.

Firstly, the 18 year old is looking at being put down like a dog, via lethal injection. Right, ok, so State sanctioned murder seems perfectly permissable. Never mind.

But most annoying of all is the government’s position in the matter. According to the Sky News source: A senior official at Thailand’s Culture Ministry said the murder was a wake-up call for authorities to tackle the issue of violence in computer games.

Was it really?

This ’senior official’ actually stated: “This time-bomb has already exploded and the situation could get worse. “Today it is a cab driver, but tomorrow it could be a video game shop owner.”

See that last sentence there. Tomorrow it could be a video game shop owner. Why a video game shop owner? Surely this would actually be the last person in the line of fire, because if the lad has gone into the shop to buy GTA, he presumably hasn’t played it yet. So he won’t have been overcome by the brainwashing insidiousness of a computer game that millions of people worldwide have played since the initial release date of the first in the series. So you may as well replace video game shop owner with, mum, or, old person in street, or, baker or butcher or candlestick maker. or even…human being.

And here is an even more bizarre reaction: The voluntary act of games distributors pulling the popular and profitable GTA games off their shelves. As reported by Sky: Sakchai Chotikachinda, sales and marketing director of New Era Interactive Media, said: “We are sending out requests today to outlets and shops to pull the games off their shelves and we will replace them with other games…”

I am not the world’s foremost expert on Thai society, so I am unable to offer serious insight into the national psyche and why this bizarre Daily Mail-esque authoritarian knee-jerk reactionary response has come about. I will make the bold assumption that not only is the government of Thailand and the police force of Thailand predisposed to acts of authoritarianism, but that it is an accepted norm in their society - as businesses don’t junk profits unless it is seriously in their long term interests.

What I will do here is offer an overview on my personal opinion, and why knee jerk reactions to things like this are wrong.

Firstly, it is blatantly insane to start restricting video games because one killer identified GTA as being a source of inspiration. I love GTA, as do millions of console players. Needless to say, there’s no shortage of cabbies in my area or most peoples’ areas, and if there is a shortage, it’s probably not down to homicide.

Secondly, what a cop out for the murderer - not only that, it’s a state sanctioned cop out, so he wins and everyone is taken for the pricks they must be to put up with this situation.

Thirdly, why should the liberties of computer game fans in Thailand be quashed because of the actions of one lunatic? Even if it could be proven, and it can’t, that the game MADE HIM do it, or had a massive influential factor in it, responsibility for the killing can in no way be placed upon the game or game makers, designers and distributors. The moment society goes down that road, it becomes a can of worms waiting to get opened.

The whole concept of restricting peoples’ choices and behaviours because of a rare, or even prolific, type of crime, is deranged, immoral and completely authoritarian. It makes me fucking sick, actually. And not only is there this extreme, there’s the other extreme in the death penalty. Lose-Lose. Thailand 1 - Common Sense 0.

Let’s have a look at a few examples shall we? That Virginia Tech rampaging mass murder spree bloke, Seung Hui Cho. When I read up on that case at the time, the dominant theory was that he was sexually frustrated and wound himself up because everyone else was getting some and he wasn’t. On the basis of the Thai solution, and using the ridiculous left-liberal Statist logic that there are excuses for peoples’ bad behaviour, we can therefore assume that a solution lies in the issue of girls being present at universities where frustrated would-be serial killers lay dormant.

So surely under the school of thought being discussed, universities should either segregate the sexes and never the twain shall meet, or, all girls should go uber-peasant Muslim and wear Hijab and Niqab. Alternatively, all university courses should be run a-la Open Uni, from the inside of one’s room, where one needn’t go out and be faced with sexy girls one can’t hope to access. Sound good? Didn’t think so. John Demetriou 0 - Authoritarian Statist Cocks 1.

Or how about the Columbine Massacre. Everyone’s heard of that - where Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the German speaking neo-Nazis, massacred people with the prevalent excuse being that it was because not only that they felt like outcasts in a jock-dominated society, but that they were big fans of Mein Kampf.

Ok, how to deal with that? It’s obvious is it not? Ban Mein Kampf from libraries, ban Michel Thomas teach-yourself-German cassettes and CDs (tricky to be a fully fledged Nazi killer when you’re only lingo is nasal American whine) ban sporting events where jocks are allowed to show off, ban sporty clothes that identify jocks from others, ban showing off, ban openly flaunted relationships and maybe, when you’ve managed to work round the US constitution, ban guns. CNN 1 - Common Sense 0.

How about an example closer to home? Jamie Bulger’s killers, Jon Venables and Robert Thompson, had their excuses readily publicised by the fascist press back in 1993. I remember it well. The Daily Sieg Heil State Capitalist Mein Fuhrer Goose Stepping Cunt, wasted no time at all telling people that violent films were to blame for the behaviour of the two shit bags.

So easy solution there! Ban violent films, ban films that may possibly be violent, and if that won’t work, ban video and DVD players and ensure, by force if necessary, that parents provide due care and observation over their children at all times. TV’s must not be banned however, as then people might start to wake up to the Orwellian hell they’ve sleep-walked into. New Labour / Daily Hate Unholy Alliance 1 - Common Sense 0.

The point is, where do you draw the line, and where does responsibility ultimately lie? It surely must rest with the individual, otherwise there will always be a ready made excuse waiting in the wings to play politics and ban people from doing things - restricting their liberties.

As a Libertarian, I completely and utterly believe in the rights of the individual and their complete freedom in all things. Only to be curtailed by their own actions that infringe the liberties of others.