I hope we can all agree this defense is B.S., and this 16-year-old kid belongs behind bars and is responsible for his actions, and shouldn't be able to shift blame on his wealth.
But you have to give his attorney credit for coming up with a novel defense for an indefensible act.
This kid has parents who didn't properly supervise or discipline him, breeding an arrogance that led him to trial. But it doesn't require wealth to raise a spoiled child. And conversely, many other children have come from bad homes and still turned out far more responsible than the parents who raised them.
Ultimately, this kid is responsible for his own actions, and this judge's ruling is a perversion of the law.
It's a ruling that could only have come from a liberal judge, with some agenda other than the law.
