[Sourcecode]

Wait, how many people watched the video.

Did anyone catch that the kid had some family problems and left home/ran away to vent.
He was gone a couple days.

He ended up being taken in by a actual criminal that fed and groomed him. Then put a gun to his head and told him to rob the store.

Even then he had no intent to fire the weapon. It was said that the weapon was fired accidentally when he was tackled and in a struggle.
A experienced person with a gun usually doesn't know that you don't actually place your finger on the trigger.
It sounds more like it was a negligent discharge.
The kid also had no previous record or mentions of run ins with the law.
In the end, no one was harmed. People with money and better lawyers have gotten away with worse.



Those statements alone are enough to realize that the kid wasn't a hardened thief or even criminal.

It appears more that he was tried add an adult.
1. Because someone had to take the fall and be the example.
(He was the first kid to be tried under the law in California)
2. He was well into puberty and looks much older than his birth and mental age.
( I plenty of kids I went to school with liked like adults when they barely hit high school. They went straight to the football team)

The kid didn't need super max.
He needed juvenile detention and a mentor/father figure.