The judge decided that it's the depiction of violence that is to blame. What I said is that there's no reason to single out depiction of violence in videogames, when we have depictions of violence in any other medium.
Now, I realize that the depiction of violence is not to blame here, it's the teenager's obvious mental deficiency. A videogame won't make a mentally healthy teenager believe people come back to life, healthy people simply aren't that susceptible.
But were the depiction of violence really to blame, then we'd have to ban all depictions of violence, whether videogames, films, books, spoken language, or any other form of expression, except violence itself -- because actual violence is not a depiction of violence.
And that's why I wrote "no different than killing over a copy of a violent film".