A couple months ago I read a story about a 17 year old kid who shot both of his parents, killing his mother, for taking away his copy of Halo 3. The story was after the trial, in which the teen was tried as a juvenile. The judge gave him 23 years to life claiming that because he played video games, he didn't understand the difference between killing someone on the game and killing someone in real life.
This is absolutely retarded. When I was 14, I started playing violent video games, my first of such was Diablo for the PC. Even when I was this age, I knew the difference between real and animated death. Saying that this kid had no idea what he was doing is asinine. There are government regulations on video games, Halo 3 can be legally played by 17 year olds.
What happens in 23 years when someone takes away his new hobby, whether it's video games, the cable goes out or his girlfriend leaves him. Is he still going to kill whoever is to blame for this?
Associated article: http://www.fox8.com/news/wjw-news-daniel-petric-sentenced,0,644171.story
New addition to my "Dead to Me" list: 17 year-olds being tried as a minor.