There are not many films in which a minor gets shot. It happens in real life where there are wars going on because we see it in the news. So let me first give an example: Say an unproduced film writer with a spec script were writing a film based on a true story, but one which heavily ficionises and exaggerates things to console himself - depicting that a crown court judge was assainated when in fact he wasn't, for instance - is writing about a gang of youths who are being assisted by minors to ransack a housing estate, frighten the old folk, and smash windows, while enjoying immunity to prosecution because of their age, and one man who is not mentally ill but who decides to take on the gang by shooting the leader with a handgun. Excepting that on the occasion when he comes into contact with the gang catching them in the act of frightening old folk and causing massive damage, he decides albeit by premeditation to shoot the leading minor as well. Now this kind of script would provoke controversy, and could anger people in the audience. Sure they will have read about it before they go and see it, so they will know what to expect. So the writer of it, being a consciencous guy, not wanting to lose sales for the production company, edited the minor scenes out early on, just showing them in the beginning, so that the only one that would be shot is the youth. The problem is, whenever he (and anyone else) reads the script it appears to have something wrong with it, like the writer has overlooked something inadvertently not intentionally, namely he depicted minors being in it at the beginning and then we hear nothing else about them. It might be obvious to responsible people that the writer has edited it this way with deliberate intent, but the tactic could also go against him. The audience might see the tactic and misinterpret it, and then give the film bad reviews because it contains an error. Similarly the writer has decided that he cannot omit minors completely because it will cause the audience to question why there are no minors in the housing estate gang sequences. So there has to be minors and there has to be a leading minor, just as there has to be youths and a leading youth. The writer believes that even the most deplorable thug or the mentally ill that watch the film will not carry out a copy cat offence in real life because of it. So it doesn't concern that question. What it concerns is if the shooting of a minor will make the audience forget about the rest of the film. Will they come away thinking, `that was a great film about the shooting of a minor' when in reality it is being edited to be a great film about two people caught up in controversial matters. I have one option, reviewed here a few months ago, (as I am the writer), which would have the shooting sequence cut completely and inserted into a dream sequence. There would be a less controversial shooting sequence inserted back in its place, one that would be more acceptable to the audience because they would be reasonably familiar with that kind of thing. The combination of the shooting in the dream sequence and the less controversial shooting might inform rational people about what actually happened as the writer remembers it and has chosen to write it, while at the same time playing it down for the sake of the mainstream audience. I would be sacrificing my own preferences for the sake of the audience. Tell me what you think. Would I be gambling my career as a script writer with the odds on losing if I depict it as it is? I do not want to advertise myself as being someone who was lenient with them. With these particular (word omitted). Think of me as a soldier who at one time could not tell right from wrong because of the hostility of war after being forcibly drafted who has written an account of it. I want to depict it as I remember it to console myself, but at the same time I want to impress the audience with my writing.