Yeah, no, that doesn't follow. "Kids" aren't a uniform category; there's a reason that kids under 7 are generally viewed as incapable of the necessary mental capacity for criminal accountability, and between 7 and 14 there is in most states a presumption of incapacity that must be overcome in addition to the usual proof requirements for crime. So, no, you don't have to treat acts by minors in their late teens as irrefutably noncriminal without investigation to avoid considering acts by five year olds to be that way (even before considering ways that the act you suggest for the five year old was dissimilar to the one at issue for the older minors in the article, which would be another axis on which treatment could also reasonably be differentiated.)
