PS3 game-playing dad Mark Sandland killed baby

[Eshaal]

A father who had been playing on his PlayStation killed his five-week-old daughter after being frustrated by her screaming, a court heard.

 

Mark Sandland, 28, picked up Aimee-Rose and shook her during a sudden loss of temper, prosecutors said.

 

Sandland, from Hastings, denied murder on the grounds of lack of intent.

 

Last Monday, the prosecution confirmed it had accepted his guilty plea to manslaughter.

 

Sandland claimed he had suffered an epileptic fit and came round to find his daughter underneath him at their flat in Church Road, St Leonards-on-Sea in East Sussex.

 

Lewes Crown Court heard police who attended the flat after Aimee-Rose was rushed to hospital on 5 November 2012 found a PlayStation game controller on the sofa opposite the TV.

 

Prosecutor Sally Howes QC said: "It's the Crown's case that, frustrated by the distraction of Aimee-Rose screaming, the defendant picked her up and gripped her around her torso and shook her in a sudden loss of temper and loss of control.

 

"Despite his admission that the television was on that morning, by the time the ambulance crew arrived it had been switched off, thus covering up the fact he had been playing the game on his PlayStation."

 

On that day, Aimee-Rose's mother was attending her first class for an applied social science degree course at the University of Brighton's Hastings campus.

 

During a break at around lunchtime, she sent Sandland a text message asking after Aimee-Rose, to which he replied: "She hasn't shut up since about half an hour after you left."

 

Analysis of Sandland's mobile phone internet history showed a website offering tips on how to play Assassin Creed 3 was accessed at 14:20, Miss Howes said.

 

The detail of the website, giving step-by-step instructions, meant there would have been little point accessing it unless the game was being played, she added.

 

Miss Howes said Sandland called the emergency services 16 minutes later, saying he had suffered a seizure and had woken up on top of Aimee-Rose.

 

When an ambulance crew arrived, Sandland looked "panicked and anxious" and pointed to where she laid in the sitting room, her limbs in a star shape.

 

He told one member of ambulance staff: "I'm epileptic. I had a fit and when I woke up the baby was underneath me."

 

Aimee-Rose was admitted to the Conquest Hospital in St Leonards with brain damage, and other injuries including bruising to her face, chest, abdomen and lower limbs.

 

She was transferred to the paediatric intensive care unit at King's College Hospital, London, but died on 9 November 2012.

 

Sandland was due to be sentenced earlier but Mr Justice Sweeney adjourned the case to Hove Crown Court on Wednesday.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-28203060

 

 

Scary.

 

If I know a gaming session requires my concentration, then I play after my kids have gone to sleep.

 

 

[Lady Lilith]

More fuel for the game violence nuts...

It's sad that people will take a tragic event like this and use it to try to shift the blame on games. Are they going to try this again and again as these tragedies keep happening?

[Dr_Mayus]

OK if the the kid was found stabbed and the father hiding in a pile of hay, then I would say that Assassin's Creed was probably to blame. But it seems that this parent has a short fuse and could have easily shaken the kid because he was cooking, reading, or jerking off.

 

I hate the fact that people will take something as horrific as a child's death and try to blame everything, except the shitty parents.

 

Fuck this guy and my sympathy goes out to the rest of the child's family.

[Goro]

Jesus Christ! How could someone murder their own daughter over a fucking video game...I guess Fox will be blaming this on Assassin's Creed.

[Memnoch]

Wait, except for the fact he was playing a game, where does it say PS3 was to blame ?

 

he's gone through all sort of excuses, but not used the game. So it's now a case of forumites jumping to conclusions and getting over protective

 

However, some people really shouldn't have kids. Even the calmest people sometimes get annoyed but most (99.99%) would never take that out on the baby, so some guy (and yes I'm censoring myself here) who has anger issues or decides that kids aren't worth the bother really shouldn't be looking after them.

 

It's his fault and his alone. He knows it and is looking for an escape. I hope his prison buds show him exactly what anger in the showers can do to you.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Memnoch

[Malfuras]

That's... just.... well....

 

Jesus Christ! How could someone murder their own daughter over a fucking video game...I guess Fox will be blaming this on Assassin's Creed.

 

I feel bad if my daughter hears me yelling at a game, how could anyone lose it so much!? 

[Masamune]

If you ask me, I don't think video games had anything to do with that poor kids death, they're just looking for a damn excuse.

[StrickenBiged]

This reminds me of a similar case of child killing I read about recently.

 

As far as I can tell the journalist is just being factual and reporting the circumstances of the killing in this case by reporting that the guy was playing on his PS3. If there was any sort of inference we were supposed to draw - that playing AC3/PS3/Videogames makes you more likely to shake your baby to death - then I think I missed it.

 

Of course, I'm sure that people will interpret this case as evidence that videogames make you a child killer. What those people would be missing is that child killings are fairly uncommon, also occur in circumstances which are unrelated to videogames (see the report I hperlinked for example) and, as far as I know, there is no evidence to suggest that the rate of child killings have risen as videogames have become more popular.

[Pinkie-Pie]

wow, i mean, just....wow, I get grumpy at my daughter but i could never do that. I can see the media trying to blame the game for the violence and not the parent for the anger, cause that's what some try to do. My heart goes out to the poor girls mum, gosh knows how she's coping...

[Sir_Bee]

I agree with Memnoch, nobody actually blamed video games here.  It is a bit sensationalized that the news had to tell us in detail that he was playing a ps3, but nobody has blamed it ... yet.  Lets hold off on our anger at those who place blame until they actually do.  That being said, this whole story is ridiculous.  And that guy probably would have reacted that way regardless of what he happened to be doing currently.

[Piggie_Pie]

Dang this just makes me so sad for that poor baby who was just an innocent child trying to communicate that she needed something... Thats what babies do...

[Fujynon]

True rage. U mad m9 get rekd mtn dew

[Sir_Bee]

True rage. U mad m9 get rekd mtn dew

 

I could forgive you if it isn't, but I really hope that English is not your first language ...

[StrickenBiged]

True rage. U mad m9 get rekd mtn dew

 

A bit insensitive...

[Sir_Bee]

A bit insensitive...

 

Really?  I could not even tell what was said lol.

[razizo41]

Really?  I could not even tell what was said lol.

 

True rage. You're mad, mine get wrecked mountain dew. ????? lolwut.

[Daditude_]

It's easy to be armchair parents, guys and gals. Wait to make your opinion once you experience it firsthand. No, I'm not sympathizing with this bastard. However, as a new father, it is very easy to get frustrated. The media can blame anything and everything. That fact is, this piece of shit should have never impregnated a woman. When you bring new life into this world, real men and woman change to nurture that life. You may not want to always put the controller down, but you will because it's what you do.

Edited July 8, 2014 by Daditude_

[RedEye420]

However, some people really shouldn't have kids. 

 

I cannot agree with this more. Some people need to have the MATURITY to admit they don't actually want to be a parent. There's too much pressure from society (in America at least) that the ONLY way you can be successful is by having kids and that leads so many people to just have them without even really thinking about what it means to create another human life. Then of course you have a small collection of crazy/ignorant/hypocritical parents who actually have the audacity to call those that make this reasonable decision "selfish".  Many of these parents are spending the rest of their lives holding their children responsible for their birth or expressing roundabout regret by constantly lamenting how much money they cost or even abuse. The last time I checked no one is forcing anybody to have unprotected sex. I think we need reproductive reform in this country at least in our attitudes towards the whole deal. I respect dedicated, loving parents but I also respect those who have politely said, "No, thanks. Not my style."  just as much.

Edited July 8, 2014 by RedEye420

[acasser]

As far as I can tell the journalist is just being factual and reporting the circumstances of the killing in this case by reporting that the guy was playing on his PS3. If there was any sort of inference we were supposed to draw - that playing AC3/PS3/Videogames makes you more likely to shake your baby to death - then I think I missed it.

 

Perhaps this is just my point of view that nobody else shares, but there's no reason for the reporter to be hyper-specific like this -- playing the PS3 and mentioning a specific game -- unless he intends for people to make inferences from that information.  Maybe it's just the cynic in me, but I find it quite interesting to browse random "news" sites and see which stories have particular details included and which do not.  For example, stories about politicians doing bad things will frequently have their party affiliation included or omitted depending on the bias of the site in question and whether or not they wish to smear a group larger than just the one miscreant.

 

Say the father was playing video games instead of attending to his kid and that's fine.  When you expand the story to include specifics, I hold the opinion that the reporter has an axe to grind.

[Dr_Mayus]

Perhaps this is just my point of view that nobody else shares, but there's no reason for the reporter to be hyper-specific like this -- playing the PS3 and mentioning a specific game -- unless he intends for people to make inferences from that information. 

See I agree with this. He doesn't mention that the man may have been drinking a pepsi and eating Orville popcorn and a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird was sitting dog-eared on the coffee table next to him because those things aren't buzz words in today's media. Reporters know that Violence+Video Games are guaranteed to get more clicks so that is what he is going to concentrate on.

 

So for the simple fact that he mentioned the PS3, Assassin's Creed and even went so far as to mention that the father had used his phone to look up information on the game, he is strongly implying that the game is what led to the father killing his daughter.

[KratosTheMighty]

Children shouldn't have children...If you get into a temper tantrum over a game and kill your kids...you've proven just how shitty of a parent you really are. Hope this guy gets manhandled in jail.

[RedEye420]

See I agree with this. He doesn't mention that the man may have been drinking a pepsi and eating Orville popcorn and a copy of To Kill a Mockingbird was sitting dog-eared on the coffee table next to him because those things aren't buzz words in today's media. Reporters know that Violence+Video Games are guaranteed to get more clicks so that is what he is going to concentrate on.

 

So for the simple fact that he mentioned the PS3, Assassin's Creed and even went so far as to mention that the father had used his phone to look up information on the game, he is strongly implying that the game is what led to the father killing his daughter.

 

I think the concepts of critical thinking are especially important in these situations because news outlets do this ALL the time with literally every story. They know exactly what conclusions people are going to draw given a specific set of data and they use it to push a narrative. Everyone draws conclusions from collected data that is human nature. Skepticism can be very productive in these situations.

 

However, I do think that you also have to look at each circumstance individually. In this case, the man is trying to claim that he suffered an epileptic seizure and woke up on top of the baby. The prosecution is trying to assert that he murdered/killed the baby in a fit of emotion. That's a big jump from innocent tragic accident to a felonious crime (including possible cover-up). So the prosecution has to make some assertion as to why he would do such a thing and in that regard his playing the game became relevant to their version of the story. They are saying he was mad at the game and frustrated with the baby so he lost control of his temper. They are attempting to prove this by mentioning the location of the controller and the search history of his mobile phone at a specific time. So while I love the skeptical thinking, I'm not entirely and totally convinced that the reporter is trying to paint this as a "video game scenario" or whether the writer is simply trying to explain why the prosecutors are alleging a terrible crime occurred. My skepticism is still fully engaged from all angles.  

 

 I'm sure it will eventually get spun into something related to the typical "video game violence routine", though. Just a tragic situation all around.

[Dr_Mayus]

I think the concepts of critical thinking are especially important in these situations because news outlets do this ALL the time with literally every story. They know exactly what conclusions people are going to draw given a specific set of data and they use it to push a narrative. Everyone draws conclusions from collected data that is human nature. Skepticism can be very productive in these situations.

 

However, I do think that you also have to look at each circumstance individually. In this case, the man is trying to claim that he suffered an epileptic seizure and woke up on top of the baby. The prosecution is trying to assert that he murdered/killed the baby in a fit of emotion. That's a big jump from innocent tragic accident to a felonious crime (including possible cover-up). So the prosecution has to make some assertion as to why he would do such a thing and in that regard his playing the game became relevant to their version of the story. They are saying he was mad at the game and frustrated with the baby so he lost control of his temper. They are attempting to prove this by mentioning the location of the controller and the search history of his mobile phone at a specific time. So while I love the skeptical thinking, I'm not entirely and totally convinced that the reporter is trying to paint this as a "video game scenario" or whether the writer is simply trying to explain why the prosecutors are alleging a terrible crime occurred. My skepticism is still fully engaged from all angles.  

 

 I'm sure it will eventually get spun into something related to the typical "video game violence routine", though. Just a tragic situation all around.

You make a very valid point. Proving his actions and intentions at the time of murder is very important.

[Sir_Bee]

I think the concepts of critical thinking are especially important in these situations because news outlets do this ALL the time with literally every story. They know exactly what conclusions people are going to draw given a specific set of data and they use it to push a narrative. Everyone draws conclusions from collected data that is human nature. Skepticism can be very productive in these situations.

 

However, I do think that you also have to look at each circumstance individually. In this case, the man is trying to claim that he suffered an epileptic seizure and woke up on top of the baby. The prosecution is trying to assert that he murdered/killed the baby in a fit of emotion. That's a big jump from innocent tragic accident to a felonious crime (including possible cover-up). So the prosecution has to make some assertion as to why he would do such a thing and in that regard his playing the game became relevant to their version of the story. They are saying he was mad at the game and frustrated with the baby so he lost control of his temper. They are attempting to prove this by mentioning the location of the controller and the search history of his mobile phone at a specific time. So while I love the skeptical thinking, I'm not entirely and totally convinced that the reporter is trying to paint this as a "video game scenario" or whether the writer is simply trying to explain why the prosecutors are alleging a terrible crime occurred. My skepticism is still fully engaged from all angles.  

 

 I'm sure it will eventually get spun into something related to the typical "video game violence routine", though. Just a tragic situation all around.

 

I agree with the concept of what you said, but regardless of the purpose behind giving that information to the public, the person who wrote it knows exactly how people will interpret it.  Whether that is was they wanted or not, it is irresponsible reporting to give all these details.  The general public only understands what they are told, and in this story they are told he was playing a game called assassins creed (which can only be assumes is about killing), and then killed his child.  The story would have been just as valid if all they said was he was in front of the tv, or they didn't even have to say what he was doing.  Those details are needed in court, not in the papers for the general public to take way out of context.

[RedEye420]

I agree with the concept of what you said, but regardless of the purpose behind giving that information to the public, the person who wrote it knows exactly how people will interpret it.  Whether that is was they wanted or not, it is irresponsible reporting to give all these details.  The general public only understands what they are told, and in this story they are told he was playing a game called assassins creed (which can only be assumes is about killing), and then killed his child.  The story would have been just as valid if all they said was he was in front of the tv, or they didn't even have to say what he was doing.  Those details are needed in court, not in the papers for the general public to take way out of context.

 

Well I'm skeptical on both angles. I'm not convinced the reporter WASN'T trying to make an assertion about video games and I'm not convinced the reporter WAS trying to make an assertion about video games. The problem being here is that the reporter is reporting on the the trial. So the writer is obligated to inform the public of the prosecution's case as well as the defendant's. The reporter can't simply say, "the prosecution is charging him with murder" and leave it at that. The reporter has an obligation to explain both sides of the case. I think it just looks worse than it is because in order to explain the prosecution's side, you needed these little details of why they think he was lying wheras the defendant's case can be easily summed in one sentence. The reporter can't just leave out certain details because it doesn't want the public to think certain things. That's also a form of bias.

Edited July 9, 2014 by RedEye420