Otherwise we have to depend on cops to have at least an ounce of common sense. Which seems to be a losing battle. Shoot first, ask questions later. Brilliant plan.

I wonder what the rookie learned Tuesday?

as long as the victim is darker skinned and male.

Or at least TRY to ascertain that information FIRST, before filling (literally) some child full of bullet holes...because he had a toy gun.

I hope he learned that lesson and not the one you said.

…if a child is going to carry a gun, make sure it's a REAL one -- that way, they'll have a fighting chance.

I guess they believe the child had no rights! They disgust me to my core.

in the current climate of kids creating mass murder events with firearms. I have a number of biracial friends and no way in hell do they let their kids ever near a gun. They do not play guns. It is pure idiocy to not realize that the police are freaked out, that they easily over react and to allow oneself to be a target of this insanity because you thought it was fun to "play guns?" is beyond idiotic.

I am sorry for the child and his family. But I am also mystified that they did not know that carrying a look alike weapon is like wearing a target.

So it is the families fault their kid had a toy gun, gotcha.

No play guns, no bebe's forget it.

Seriously, this must be a regional thing. In N CA people/kids do not do this, walk around with a play or real guns. It is not normal to see kids running around with weapons, unless they are out at a shooting range.

Kids here run around all day with bb guns and toy guns (well after school and on the weekends). Never heard of a cop shooting a kid walking around with a toy gun, no matter WHAT it looked like. Never heard of cops pulling up in a squad car and unloading into a child like that.

overreaction, but all the parents that I know (I have a 12 yr old daughter, so I know lots of parents) don't even let their kids pretend sticks are guns. It is considered an invitation to be shot by the police someday. This illustrates why the majority of the parents think this. It is so sadly true.

It is perhaps related to the militarized marijuana growing here and there in parts of our area. Another poster alluded to this. It really has an impact on law enforcement. They deal with pretty wild situations at times and I think that to protect your kid from a PTSD police situation by not allowing play guns seems warranted, especially after this terrible tragedy.

if I lived in that area, after hearing about the cops shooting a kid with a toy gun. I can understand that.

Never heard of that.

hidden marijuana gang growing sites.

People can get permits to grow medical marijuana, and these people are perhaps paranoid, and have lots of locked gates, fenced super high fields, etc but they are not known for shooting people or livestock or dogs. They are not known for having guards camped out at the hidden temporary growing sites with machine guns ready to shoot. These illegal temporary squatters are known for the environmental destruction and their connection to the drug cartels, complete with all the viscousness associated with them.

They are freaking a whole lot of people out.

That AK-47 looked real gun.

The lack of empathy for the child is very telling.

This is terribly tragic.

I am saying that kids should not think it is safe to walk around with toy guns around here. It is clear, it has been happening for decades now around here, police shooting kids over play guns, this is hardly a unique incident. It happens often.

So, forget about playing with guns already!

What is so hard to understand?

Why is it victim blaming to state the obvious that kids should not be playing with realistic looking guns in public. The police cannot be trusted to tell the difference between real threats of mass shootings and fake weapons. Especially if they are realistic looking.

You are victim blaming.

Knowing that cops shoot kids with guns?

You honestly think that I am defending the killing of the poor kid?

I am not, I am saying that kids should not play with guns in public places, especially without the toy gun markings.

You think it is some new and unique thing that the police overreacted? You think it is going to stop because you come onto DU and whine about it? In the meantime, don't allow kids to be set up like this. It is pretty simple.

You are blaming the victim, yet you aren't realizing it. Where again did I "whine about it?" You're not making your position look very good when you resort to that. Women get raped every day. They should also not wear short skirts and tank tops right? Probably not a good idea for them to go the bar...because, hey, women get raped every day.

It's really simpler: There is no excuse EVER for a cop to shoot an unarmed kid SEVEN (see how I keep capitalizing that and you keep ignoring it?) time.

He's a murderer. Plain and simple.

why? What is your issue? You think all police are so nice and well behaved? Are you completely crazy? Or do you live in some neverland where kids don't get shot by the police? Where do you get the idea that I think the police did the correct thing?

I am glad to hear that your kids never got shot by the police, they were lucky. To act as though we can change the police by letting our kids run around with realistic looking assault weapons after so many kids have been on mass shooting rampages is ridiculous.

And why are you so hell bent on changing the discussion to rape?

Much like rape apologists blame the victim, in order to draw your attention to what you are doing.

My kids were not lucky. My kids were playing. My kids never met a crazy police officer like this poor boy did.


Where did I get the idea that you think the police did the correct thing? By your continuous foisting of the blame to the victim. It's that simple.

Seven bullets.

Into a boy who had every right to walk over to a friend's house to play.

and lucky that your kids never have been assaulted by the police.

So, I guess you can just tell us in other places that we have the right to run around endangering ourselves. Go for it.

But where I am, up here, only foolish people do such things and this poor kid died because either no one warned him, or he did not listen. I am hardly blaming the victim, I am frustrated that he was not clued into this long standing fact that police shoot people with guns around here. It happens way too often and this is my last reply to you. I know maybe 11 moms of boys who are not white. Not one of them has ever been allowed to play with a gun. They are very clear about this to their children and to their friends. It is not a joke, it is a significant threat that is taken very seriously and this case illustrates exactly why.

And you are making an assumption about where I live. I lived just north of Detroit when my children were playing with their friends. They, and the children of Northern California, have every right to do so--without fear of being shot SEVEN times by the police. I am frustrated when people don't realize that they are blaming the wrong person.

I think it's time for the police to be held accountable, for proper training on assessing a situation to be instituted, and for children to stopped being blamed for bringing this on themselves.


On edit: Apology for the baseless name calling thing? That would be nice because it's never been something I do here.

You are going to make sure all police have psychic training in being able to tell the difference between toy and real weapons?

Who does't want police violence and overreaction to stop? Join the very big club, we all do. Everyone does.

In the meantime, keep realistic looking toy weapons away from people. This is not victim bashing, this is preventative maintenance in the society. Don't run around with assault weapon look a likes near the pot growers. Do you know how many and how violent these characters are? They are dotted all around this part of the state and they have these weapons and use they them.

And in our area we have lots of illegal pot growers and they shoot people all the time. The police deal with lots of very strange situations here. This situation smacks of a policemen that totally misread the situation and overreacted brutally.

I keep sheep on my farm (only a few hundred), but my friend with a few thousand has 17 guardian dogs who stay with her sheep to protect them from predators such as coyotes and bobcats and mountain lions. Guess who kills her dogs? She finds them shot up with machine guns. These gangs of illegal pot growers are pretty ruthless and they sneak onto public and private lands, spread pollution and waste all over the place and park a few young guys with machine guns around to protect the grows. If you don't think this effects law enforcement and the firefighters and county workers, think again. it changes the mood into a pretty fearful one.

A neighbor a few years ago went nutty shooting a high powered rifle down the road at imaginary guys coming up to steal his stuff. He was a white guy. The county sent a swat team of 4 law enforcement officers to my house and they VERY CAREFULLY went to his place and arrested him. But it could have been a big shoot out, and I could not get away because he was shooting the road and anyone driving up and down it. These officers were terrified, they acted all tough, but they were really really scared. So was I. And so you take someone who has had too many of these sorts of incidents and you couple it with a mass shooting the day before and you get a gigantic mistake that took a wonderful child's life. If you don't want this to happen to your kid, make sure he or she does not have realistic looking guns. This is common sense. I am sorry that you do not see it that way.

Why make your kid a target for such digressions? What is so incredibly important about playing with realistic looking weapons that you would advocate risking kids lives over it? Seriously, I have no idea what is so important about playing with realistic looking guns.

And if you can figure out how to keep the police from overreacting and making mistakes, my hat is off to you.

In the meantime, normal people try to figure out how to muddle through it all. And for us, here, we keep weapons and look alike weapon toys away from kids. And typing "seven times" one hundred times will not bring this poor child back, nor will it change the situation that police armed with weapons can and do over react, can and do make mistakes and some of them are brutal just waiting to explode. But most are hard working people caught up in very wild and dangerous circumstances trying to protect their communities and make a decent living with benefits.

7 bullets (but we've been through this) is over kill against a child who did nothing wrong.

And no, no matter how many stories are told, we cannot/should not ever blame victims.

I think you need to reassess your stance on this.

And you seem to not grasp that police are humans and thus are prone to error, as we all are.

This policeman may have simply made a mistake and had some PTSD insanity overwhelm him causing him to just keep shooting (SEVEN TIMES!!!). Or he may have been doing these sorts of things his entire career and has just been caught at it with this kid (sort of unlikely, but it very well could be the case, we will find out in time and thank goodness a real investigation has been begun).

WHAT DOES IT MATTER??????? The poor child is dead and his family is injured irreparably. And what about this officer, if it was some PTSD thing, how does he ever live with himself. Over what???? The so called idiotic right to play with look alike guns?????? Why would you advocate such an insane thing?

It happens, it happens enough up here that there was legislation to make sure all play guns were easily identifiable to law enforcement. This means it is a real problem for the regular officers, the ones who are not flipping out. The ones trying to do their jobs honestly and with good motivation. Why do you want their job to be harder by advocating that distinctions between play guns and real ones be dropped? What is so fabulous about having kids playing with look alike fire arms? I am missing the point here. I cannot understand why you think that kids or anyone should endanger themselves in this way.

Can you be unaware that there are some people in law enforcement who crack and over react regularly. And that despite decades of work on the matter, some of these individuals still work in law enforcement?

You seem to cling to the idea that we can just all act as we want without worrying about or trying to prevent preventable accidents over some so called ideas of "rights". I find your attitudes naive and dangerous, and perhaps you have never been beat up, or had any other terrors afflicted upon you. Well, that is wonderful and good for you, and I hope that you never suffer in these ways.

But for those of us who have suffered, then damn straight we are wise and prudent to ensure that we are not targets of these types. We don't let our kids run around with look alike guns. We do not do things that might provoke a crazy response from the crazies that inhabit all walks of life. We are careful and that is that. This is not victim blaming, this is victim prevention.

You seem hell bent on blaming me and blaming people in general and not very interested in what to actually do about it.

Grisham was walking with his son while openly carrying a gun. At least the police bothered to question Grisham FIRST before handcuffing him...in front of his teenage son while they were out on a walk. I posted his video on V&M when it first came out. NPR recently interviewed him in a story about Texas gun activists.

Where's the NRA, GOA, second amendment champions crowd? If they're gonna stand up for Grisham (as Grisham's case was publicized all over right wing media like The Blaze) why not for this teenager? Because this teenager (a Latino in Sonoma County) would grow up to be nothing but a California ghetto thug, while the white Grisham "deserves" to be able to openly carry because he's a veteran and father?

but the fact remains, we know around here not to walk around in public with guns. I am sorry that this kid or his parents did not know this, I think it is very sad that it happened. But pretending that we have some "right to walk around in public with guns" is preposterous. We don't around here.

It seems only to be the right of white men in the South.

The right to walk in public with a toy gun is still a right, not a death warrant. The lack of empathy for the child is stunning, but typical.

Who is not horrified that the child was murdered?

Why would you advocate that people do things that will put them at risk of being murdered because of some imaginary gun right?

I do not understand the hostility here.

Are you some kind of a gun nut? I never thought so many people on DU think guns are such a great and wonderful thing.

They sure seem to cause a lot of tragedies.

Your common sense can tell in a thin slice of a second which one of these is a threat and which one is a toy?

Obviously so they can readily be identified as toys. The kid was also told to drop what was believed to be a real weapon and he did not which was why he was shot. It is apparently not known if the kid pointed it at the police or not. I don't know where your photo comes from so no idea if this is the actual toy gun the kid was carrying, but ther kid's toy gun did not have the required orange tip.

I have no idea why the kid didn't just drop the weapon as he was told nor announce that it was a toy nor why the gun did not have the required by federal law orange tip. Had he done that he wouldn't have been shot, toy or not.

http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Friends-question-killing-of-boy-who-had-fake-rifle-4920174.php
No orange tip on replica

Santa Rosa and Petaluma police are investigating the shooting, as is the county district attorney's office.

According to the account from Henry, the Santa Rosa lieutenant, the incident began about 3 p.m. when two deputies pulled behind Andy, who wore a blue hoodie and shorts and walked with a rifle in his left hand that had the same brown and black parts as a real AK-47.

Federal law requires replica guns to have an orange tip, but Andy's toy rifle didn't have one.

Witnesses heard a siren briefly, Henry said, as both deputies got out of the car and took cover behind open doors. Henry said witnesses heard a deputy shout twice, "Put the gun down," before Andy turned around and was shot.

You also have no idea whether or not the kid actually complied. You're just assuming that a cop who shot a kid multiple times in the back according to eye-witnesses is telling the truth. That's pretty damned sad.

I guess to make themselves feel better when they have to be around cops. They murdered that kid, sadly it seems some here will defend the cops no matter what.

The gun apologists have no shame whatsoever.

And there does seem to be a rather strong link between the authoritarian bent and gun nuttery.

And the one thing they would have wanted him to do is drop the gun as he was ordered since cops don't want to have someone with a gun in hand that can be shot at them. He also wasn't shot in the back. He was shot several times with the fatal wounds in the right hip and right chest. A person's chest is in the front of their body, not the back. I haven't seen any report of any eye-witnesses saying any such thing, and the only mention of any witness in all the dozens of articles I've read has said that the police ordered twice to drop the gun. heard that he was shot in the back nor of any eye-witnesses that say he was, and if any of them did they're lying because that's not where the shots went.

http://www.kirotv.com/news/ap/crime/calif-sheriffs-deputies-shoot-kill-13-year-old/nbXQy/
One of the deputies twice ordered Andy to drop the weapon, according to a witness, police said.

Where are ANY eyewitnesses saying he was shot in the back (which according to the preliminary autopsy report he wasn't). The only thing said in any of the dozens or articles I've read about this incident about his back is that when the police first pulled up his back was toward them. And every article I've read says that he was repeatedly ordered to drop the gun which he did not, and that he turned toward the police officers and the gun barrel was rising toward them, and THEN he was shot. Seeing as one of the fatal shots entered his chest, he was turned toward them at that time. Not even his own family disagrees with that, they just believe that the police didn't give him long enough time to comply before shooting him.

According to other articles it was ten seconds from the time the report was made at 3:14 to when the report was made that shots were fired. No one knows what was happening when that first call was made - whether the police had just pulled up or had already ordered the gun be dropped or what. It could be that the family is right that they didn't give him enough time to comply, however, if he was turning toward the police and raising the gun barrel, they're justified in believing they were about to be shot by this person and shoot him not only for their own personal safety but that of anyone else.

Other times it's because they feel they're not being respected enough. Of course they have a reason for killing. Pretty much all murderers will tell you that. Now, the question is why there are so many people here on a liberal discussion board defending the murder of an innocent child.

Do you really think you're telling me something I don't know? You think those evil fucks who beat Rodney King had a reason to do what they did? You think all those SWAT fuckers killing grandmas had a reason to do what they did? They sure did, they had really fucking awful reasons. Why you'd defend these awful reasons is well beyond me.

How dare you claim that I do! And no, the average cop doesn't go around shooting people willy-nilly because they're angry or don't feel respected or any other horrible reason... they want to keep their jobs and not go to prison just like any other normal person. You're just one of those cop haters here that thinks everything every cop does is heinous just because they're a cop. Like any other normal person I'm neutral and don't either love them or hate them and like any normal thinking person look at any incident on its own and evaluate whatever evidence is available from a neutral position. And the evidence in THIS incident so far looks like it was a justified shooting, but I have no problem changing my mind about that according to whatever other evidence becomes available in the future. And of course we all know that if it turns out that the dashcam video shows just what the police involved said what happened and that the killing was tragic yet justified you and your ilk will hardly be here apologizing for all the shit you imagine happened just because you hate every cop either dead or alive and have an irrational belief that they're all so nuts that they just run about shooting people for kicks.

Unlike you I don't flat out make shit up like the kid was shot in the back when he wasn't or claim there were eyewitnesses that said so when there isn't and when his own family that had to go and identify his dead body doesn't even claim that. There IS one civilian witness that claims that twice the police ordered him to drop his gun and he didn't, so like any normal thinking person when both the police claim that's what happened and a civilian witness said that's what happened that's what I'm going to believe rather than cling on to some stupid irrational cop hatred I don't even have and believe that they just popped out of their vehicle in front of witnesses and with a dashcam that records everything and shot some person willy-nilly because they felt like it. Because to believe that is just plain STUPID when every report says otherwise.

Yes, there are cops that do bad things for terrible reasons, but they are RARE. Every shooting does not add up to some Rodney King RARE occurrence, and it's STUPID to believe that most of the shooting incidents are and flat out crazy to think they all are. But that's not going to stop you from irrationally believing that they happen in most or even all shooting incidents nor trying to claim that just because I have the normal thinking person's ability to be neutral on every case and go by the actual evidence of what occurred I must believe that the worst among them such as the ones that beat Rodney King were justified when doing so when they clearly were not. How insulting not to mention totally irrational of you.

I also notice you didn't bother to try backing up your bullshit claims that the kid was shot in back according to eyewitnesses since he wasn't, that the only witness so far that's been mentioned is the one that backs up what the police said about ordering him to drop his gun and he didn't and the fact that not even the kid's own family believe he was shot in the back eyewitnesses or no. And you didn't bother because you can't and that's because your irrational hatred of cops made you dream it all up on your own and sit here trying to convince everyone else that it's true when every report so far says otherwise.

Like you, I'm not passing judgement yet until I see all the evidence, forensic and physical, unlike a few here who refuse to look at the available evidence so far and proclaim them as murderers without the investigation even being completed.
And we're the ones with the closed minds?

You're either passing judgement or your logic is so lacking you shouldn't be allowed next to a microwave. Your choice. Someone who's incapable of telling the difference between being shot in the right hand and being shot from the right should probably be wearing a helmet when out in public. But keep thinking that your binge watching sessions of CSI makes you an expert.

If you want to think that of me, be my guest, like I stated earlier, I've been called a lot worse by much tougher customers.
Meanwhile, I'm going to continue to voice my opinion and remain open minded about this incident and not pass any judgement until the final official report is released, unlike you, who has already condemned the cops without all the evidence being presented.

BTW, FBI is now launching an investigation into this incident, as well they should to clear this up.

If he was shot in the right hand, your honor, you must acquit. You should know that only idiot fundies think that their opinions trump actual facts.

No wait, that's tragically ignorant, not funny.

Last edited Sun Oct 27, 2013, 01:11 PM - Edit history (1)

"I'm rubber, you're glue, whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you".

A little childish, don't you think?

This is getting us nowhere, so I'll be the adult in the room and bid thee farewell.

Which is what you'd have to be in order to read those sentences and interpret them to mean that the kid wasn't shot in the back. You go on with your adult self and get some reading lessons.

Says all I need to know about you. Thanks. But go on and make another post saying "But the cop said he was justified! "

From what has been released from the autopsy, there is really only one shot whose direction has been determined. Others not all. But go on pretending you're a forensics expert.

removed. The law is for manufacturers and transporters only.

Walking around with a toy gun in plain sight that does not have the orange tip IS transporting. The tip is there for a reason - so that it won't be mistaken for a real gun. Remove that orange tip and you're just asking for it. How is anyone to know that the gun isn't a real gun otherwise?

The cops in this situation aren't perps. They saw a person carrying a gun that looked exactly like a real gun, and without the orange tip signifying it was a toy they had every reason to believe it WAS real. There is also no reason to disbelieve that the kid was told to drop the weapon. That's standard and certainly preferable to the police that it be dropped. That also doesn't mean that I believe the shooting was necessary. Like a normal person I look at every situation from a neutral standpoint and work with the information available.

In this case, I can't tell whether or not the shooting was necessary because of the lack of sufficient information. And because of that I don't place any blame on either side. HOWEVER, it is understandable that a person walking around with a toy gun that appears in every way to be real and does not have the orange tip signifying it is a toy there is every reason to believe that it IS real, and that's exactly the position the police SHOULD take. What this kid did walking around with a toy gun that appeared in every way to be real and without the orange tip showing it was a toy was STUPID. He should have known that it would be mistaken for a real gun. So, when the police pulled up, got out of their car and took cover behind the doors he should have known that they believed his toy gun was real. Since I do believe he was told to drop it since that is standard and precisely what the police would WANT him to do, he should have done so and immediately. He should have done so without the order at all since he should have known that his toy gun was being interpreted as a real one. He should also have announced that it was a toy. But he neither dropped the gun as ordered nor declared that it wasn't real.

With all that, he may have been frightened and couldn't think what to do. I don't know how long it was from the time the police pulled up to the shooting. I don't know if he turned and pointed the gun at the police, and neither do you. But I also don't believe that the shooting was really justified unless he DID point the gun at the police or at least was moving the gun into that position. It is entirely possible that one officer shot too soon before giving the kid more of an opportunity to comply with dropping the gun. I don't know that and neither does anyone else.

The cop filled the kid full of bullets before any action was taken by the child. Go ahead and defend the murder of a child by a cop, I am not shocked by the apologists on this site anymore.

Absolutely long enough to put a weapon down...

of doing anything but defending the cop. Pretty sad, but there it is.

You mad bro?

Are you planning to stick with internet memes for your discourse or do you plan to join the adults at the table?

Keep behaving like a child and I will continue to treat you like one. Your call. If you want to ignore the cop killed a child with a toy gun for no good reason, then that is your right. A very naive and infantile way of looking at the real world, but it is your right.

You've moved onto the "I am rubber and you are glue" level.

Keep it up!

and just making excuses for a murder. Hopefully you are not an LEO. If so, resign tomorrow and do your community a big favor.

If an adult on his way to an airsoft game was reported as carrying an AK through town and was subsequently killed I think you might stand a chance at this.

Tone down your emotion and give it another go. I'll check back on you in a bit and see how you are doing.

and are behaving like a child over it. Tone down your anger and subjectivity, nah don't I have a feeling that is impossible for you to do. The child had a toy gun and that bothers you to no end that you cannot make a case for the cop.

Please feel free to try again, you are at least entertaining if not completely wrong.

Like I said, if you think that it is totally unreasonable that anyone who saw this...





... could feel threatened then you don't even ethically belong in the conversation.

There are legitimate arguments to be made that would be somewhat in line with what you are trying to advocate that are at least intellectually honest. I can help you if you like...

when all you can do is make apologies for a cop that killed a kid with a toy gun. I know you are smarter then that, try again thanks.

... and I'm gonna have to ask you to stop parroting back my comments to you. It's about the third time.

Hint... Don't talk about parrots in your next intellectual juggernaut of a post.

Keep defending the death of the kid, it shows you for what you are. Bye bye now.

They obviously have no concern for innocent life. Typical of a few here.

The boy was on the ground and the cop walked up and pumped 6 more bullets in him

What kind of Bigoted Freak tries to justify that

One random eye witness on the road does not a fact make however...

I imagine that a medical report will show 6 rounds in close proximity with powder forensics to match if that was the case.

How about fucking disgusting if true? How about cold-blooded murder if true?

At least order yourself a backup keyboard. I think you are going to rage smash that one into splinters...

Use it...

There were witnesses. I think it might have been mentioned if one of the cops whipped out a hacksaw and started going to town...

The witnesses weren't close enough to be able to see him doing that.

But, whatever.

There are a lot of things he could have done with it. What does the evidence say?

How typical.

You broke your own supposed rule. Nice try.

All I've done is point out that the autopsy report has refuted the claim from some here that the kid was shot twice in the back and then the cop walked up and calmly shot him 5x more.
I've also said that I'm waiting for the rest of the investigation to be completed before I judge whether or not it was a justifiable shooting.

Nice try, but, fail.

Which really shows you for what you are!

they seem to be loving the fact that an LEO killed a kid with a toy gun. Sick sick sick.

were the 2 fatal shots to the front?

...could prolly show himself as not a threat... being shot in the back and shit

So far, the autopsy shows that the 2 fatal shots were to the front, not, as the OP is claiming, and continues to claim, to the back.
Can you explain that?

... enough the kid was shot 5 times in the back and shot 7 times needlessly overall.

Can you imagine what would happen if a black cop shot an open carry person with AR-15 in the back?!!?!?

Pretty much all were to the right SIDE of his body.

... was a really good shot.

The officer being close to the kid wouldn't make a difference.

I've handled these exact types of pellet guns, and short of actually holding them, they're VERY realistic. Too realistic, IMO. Plus, the orange plastic tip, the only distinguishing feature, had broken off.

Also, the officer who did the shooting was a veteran of the force, so it's possible he WAS a very good shot if he took his job seriously and trained properly.

So far, the autopsy report indicates only one hit on the right buttocks.

... and there's no way you're going to convince me the cop wanted to see the kids open carry permit and the kid said no.

Also, as mentioned above the cop had to be close to shot the side of the boys body up like that....

I pray for the childs familiy

Maybe it went down like the cops stated? Maybe we should wait for the rest of the investigation to be finished before we accuse them of murder.

I've read that the two fatal shots were to the chest and hip, and that the other wounds were to the right wrist, left bicep, right forearm, buttocks, and hip.

...that man rounds into such a narrow target

Your starting to flail here.
Why not wait for the rest of the evidence, like forensic and physical, before claiming the cops committed murder?

I don't give a fuck where he was shot.

What me and you are not disputing

1. it was a 13 yr old kid (bet they weren't asked for their open carry permit either) who was 4.5ft tall!!!
2. most of the wounds were in close proximity on a narrow target
3. Nationwide LEOs do NOT have the benefit of the doubt, people of color have statistical reason why NOT to give it to them.

I'm pointing out that several people here, 2 in particular, claimed that the cops shot this boy in the back and then walked up to him and pumped several more shots into his back as he lay there.
I'm confident at this point that isn't even close to the truth, now I'll wait to see the rest of the evidence before I judge whether or not this was a justifiable shooting.

I don't dispute that people of color have statistical reason why NOT to give the cops the benefit of the doubt, that needs to change, but to jump to the conclusion that these 2 cops are murderers before any evidence comes out is, IMO, just as dishonest, and to keep on claiming that the kid was shot several times in the back, despite the autopsy refuting this, is worse than dishonest.