I originally posted about Daniel Petric here. He’s the 17-year-old from Ohio who shot his parents because they wouldn’t allow him to play the video game Halo 3. His father survived but his mother did not.
The defense tried the age-old but never successful video game defense stating it was Halo that caused Petric to kill his parents. However, the judge was buying none of it and convicted Petric in the murder of his mother and the shooting of his father.
Will lawyers continue to use the video game defense? Undoubtedly. The scary part is it only takes one win for that defense to become viable. God help us if that day ever comes.