briandg, if investigators determined from other witnesses' statements, and any other evidence, that it was truly an accident or a case of sheer teenage foolishness, then no, I wouldn't favor prosecution. That may be the case.
However, investigators should in fact make that determination, not just assume that because of the shooter's youth that it must have been an accident.
Fourteen year olds have been known to deliberately shoot people. A former co-worker of mine was shot by a thirteen year old kid, whom he had disregarded during a raid on a gang's drug house. He was focused on the adult threats, and was surprised when a kid shot him. Good thing he had a vest.
A case a few years ago involved a ten or eleven year old kid, who was mad that he couldn't go play. He shot a girl who was outside snowmobiling, killing her. Tried to claim it was a pure accident; problem was the recoil caused the scope to give him a nice ring-shaped bruise over his eyebrow and cheekbone...
Just because the shooter was a kid, does not necessarily excuse the shooter, even if we don't hold a kid to adult standards.
I have to admit, rational yet kinda nuts is a pretty uncommon description. Guess I'm at least making you think on unusual levels...