I am surprised that Bobby Kent's family did not sue Larry Clark.

Not only was their son/brother/loved one brutally murdered, but also this movie, based on what happened to him, sided with his killers and portrayed him as a brutish thug who got what he deserved. Why didn't they try to sue Larry Clark and accuse them of defamation, or libel?

Especially considering that there is no credible evidence that Bobby Kent was a sadistic bully the movie made him out to be, other than what the people who murdered him had spoken in the court. No independent source that was not told by the murderers ever described Bobby Kent as a bully. . And before you say "What about the true crime book based on this incident "? Here is my answer.

This book is largely considered fiction, with the "true" bits coming from court testimony and fantasy. It's VERY careful of the way it uses it's language. Not much is said about the families, other than what was already public, because , as is true with most "true crime" novels, they are easily open to lawsuits. "True Crime" books are able to get away with alot of things that other writers would be drawn and quartered for. Fiction made up by Jim Schutze in his widely discredited "true crime" book the movie was based on. He read some newspaper transcripts, little of the court, and relied.....surprise...on the testimony of...you guessed it..the murderers. It's not even sourced. I think Jim Schutze's book should be taken with a grain of salt.