Smart Judge Doesn't Buy Video Game Excuse for Teen Killer

Well, here's something you hardly ever get to say anymore these days, but kudos to a judge who refused to buy a teen's "defense" that addiction to video games prompted him to shoot his parents, killing his mother.

You can read the story here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/28623160/

Ohio teen Daniel Petric, 17, and his lawyers admitted he shot his parents back in October 2007, but they said his addiction to the violent video game "Halo 3" made him less responsible for the crime. The judge's reaction was pretty much what mine (and yours, probably) was - "WTF? How stupid do you think we are?"

Although I hate to venture into the realm of blaming the victim for a crime, in this case I can't help but think some blame falls on the parents of this kid. The report says he spent as much as 18 hours a day playing video games - violent ones like Halo. The dad was a minister and he didn't realize that violence is inappropriate - always, even in games? And who bought the games for the kid?

These games cost a lot of money, as any parent knows. Was the kid independently wealthy that he could afford to buy this stuff on his own? Probably not. Which means at some point the parents bought him his first video game and probably some of the violent ones that led to his being totally desensitized to violence.

This is a double tragedy. First that the mom died, and second that these parents created a situation in which their child would make the decision to kill his parents and waste his own life.