http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090616/ap_on_re_us/us_pastor_s_wife_slain
*Cue lawyers and stupid people calling for another game to be banned.*
I love the part about how this case was apparently heard without a jury. And also how the prosecution seems completely biased against this kid, from calling for the maximum sentence, disputing his feelings of guilt and remorse, to seeming remorseful that his age makes him ineligible for the death penalty. Condolences to the family...and the kid too, for losing his mother like that and because this process seemed biased against him.
And also, if this shooting happened in 2007, then theoretically, this teen would've been too young to play Halo 3 according to rating, as it's rated M17+. It's also probably safe to assume (though not certain) that he had played the previous Halo games, rated the same. So...once again...why was he playing these games in the first place? What happened to responsibility and parents checking ratings?
The kid surely does deserve to be punished, he murdered someone, that's undeniable. But I can't help but think this is going to be yet another case that some people will leap on to ban violent games because of the one player in a million. I'm still not a fan of games like Halo and many other shooters (excepting Metroid Prime), but I don't want to see them banned or restricted any further. Games are rated for a reason.
I guess what aggravates me the most is that this...just seemed totally biased.