Boys, Frogs with Anxiety, and Criminal Defense

Brothers in CRIME
I have two boys, ages 5 and 10. One would think that their obvious age gap would leave them to pretty much ignore one another. However, as their ages have increased, so to has their utter disgust with one another from one moment to the next. Their antics don't often involve any other individuals (sometimes the poor dog is left in the crossfire), thank goodness. For the most part, their turf disputes leave them both mortified that I cannot see justification for their criminal acts. Let's take one situation in particular, to describe the 4 justifications for criminal defenses.
Drew (age 10) and Bradyn (age 5) are playing outside. Their latest antics involve the catching of frogs in the woods behind the house. There is never just one frog, there is often more than one, cramped inside their little bucket like POW's waiting for the end that won't come soon enough. The boys "love" the frogs all day, until I force them to release the frogs back to the wild after dinner. The frogs currently suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder, and are seeking therapeutic interventions as we speak. On one such day, Bradyn (the 5 year-old) assumed that frogs liked two things ... being held over the bucket by one leg and then being released back into the wild as he screamed and chased them and brought them back to the bucket. Drew (the 10 year-old) is a bit more realistic, and realized holding them by one leg would decrease their jumping ability, and chasing them after releasing them repeatedly just didn't make sense ... what if Bradyn didn't catch them and put them back (run frogs, run). On one such day, Bradyn first grabbed said frog and held it dangling, by one leg, over the bucket. Drew smacked Bradyn in the back of the head and the frog was "released" as Bradyn went to retaliate. As his little 5 year-old fists of fury started to fly, Drew realized the frog was jumping away and he retaliated in kind again expressing physical violence towards his younger brother.
By the time the little delinquents brought their case to the judge, (myself) both were crying and screaming incoherently and their defense now fell under the jurisdiction of the courts (their bedroom and their mom, arms crossed, wondering why I am pregnant with a third and didn't just stop at one child). First, the eldest claimed DURESS. The frog, apparently, through means of ESP only known to my children, informed the eldest that unless he smacked his younger brother for holding him above the bucket by the leg, then he would just hop away into the sunset. Therefore, under amphibian DURESS, the eldest wacked his brother in the head so the frog would not hop away. Second, the youngest claimed SELF-DEFENSE in retaliation to his brother's aforementioned smack to the head. He claimed his use of "non deadly force" was reasonable in that he did not provoke his elder brother's attack. He also mentioned that perhaps he would be using "deadly force" if his brother wacked him in the head again without notice. Third, the eldest then claimed NECESSITY in again wacking his brother in the head a second time because the frog was released in the first head wacking attack. Of course, the harm and evil sought to be avoided (the frog remaining in the bucket) was no longer a possibility as the initial wack to the head released the frog from the startled younger brother who then came after his elder brother threatening with non-deadly force possibly escalating to deadly force! The law of the house states, "don't touch each other!" but in this case, the NECESSITY outweighed the law ... apparently. The judge wasn't hearing any of it, so both criminals put their heads together to claim a final defense, ENTRAPMENT. The eldest claimed that had I stopped with having one child then he could have all of the frogs to himself and he would not feel inclined to resort to violent action to protect the rights of the amphibian creatures of the world. The youngest claimed that had the judge (mom, myself) just let him play with frogs by himself, like he had been doing all day while the other criminal was in school, then he would not have gotten wacked in the head forcing him to exhibit non-deadly and threatening deadly force. DURESS, SELF-DEFENSE, NECESSITY, ENTRAPMENT. No matter how you look at it, the judge threw the book at both of them (augh!) and they spent the evening in a juvenile delinquency facility (their bedroom) waiting for the warden (Dad) to release them from their cells. Both are expected to do "hard time" before their 18th birthday ... at which point the judge will release them into the wilds of society. Good luck to you all. “