Apparently not. What I've been seeing in other boards is this:
1. There is footage of the incident with the security camera being far away. In the upper left side of the image we see the incident going on and the teen clearly raises his arm and points it forward - some people say a gun is visible; others don't see anything other than the raised arm. Personally I think the image is too far away to see clearly whether or not he has a gun in his hand.
2. Police report is that a gun was found in the scene, with the serial number scratched out.
3. Some people say that someone took a picture of the scene and in this picture there is no gun. Then an official picture *taken two hours later* at the same angle and covering the same spot shows a gun.
4. Some people say that there is another security camera much closer to the incident (and apparently there are pictures taken of that camera to show its proximity to the scene) but its footage has not been released.
5. The police has stated that the cop had a body camera but it was not on, and that his patrol car had a dashboard camera but "it is thought that it wasn't on either."
6. It seems like the teen had had previous incidents of armed offenses in his background.
7. Apparently the only gun that fired shots was the officer's.
These are the statements and/or facts I believe are out there right now - I don't endorse any of them, I don't know if they are true or not, and I don't know if there are other statements, facts, pictures, or footage that contradict or confirm the above.
Now, let's think about these items.
Obviously we have two possibilites.
A. Footage in item 1 is the closest one available; police is not trying to prevent the public from seeing better footage. The teen did indeed point a gun at the police officer. The gun found in the scene is indeed the teen's gun. Maybe it was temporarily removed for expert examination and investigation then put back which would explain its absence in a picture taken two hours earlier and its presence in the later picture (I don't know if this is done - I mean, taking evidence for examination and putting it back for pictures), or else the first alleged picture taken by a citizen is a fake or photoshopped to erase the gun from it. The body camera and the dashboard camera were indeed turned off just by accident, like police statement said, because officers are still not used to this technology and make these mistakes. The teen having used guns illegally before, would lend credence to the idea that he indeed had a gun and the gun found in the scene was his, and he pointed it at the officer.
IF HYPOTHESIS A IS FACTUAL, *OF COURSE* THE OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN DEFENDING HIS OWN LIFE AND TAKING DOWN THE TEEN.
B. The teen was pointing his arm forward for some reason and had no gun (this could be as simple as the officer asking "where are you going" and the teen pointing to some street and saying "I was planning to go there" or any other thousand possibilities. There is better footage from a closer camera and it shows no gun in the teen's hand and this is why it's not being shown. There is footage from the officer's body cam and/or dashboard cam and it shows no gun and it's been erased and a false statement was made that the cameras were not on during the incident. The citizen's picture is accurate and there was no gun by the body. The police then later planted a gun there. The idea that a gun is in the scene, is taken out for expert examination then put back for pictures is not standard procedure as more likely the picture would be taken first, then the gun would be removed. It might be hard to believe that the teen had his arm fully extended and pointing a gun at the officer, and the officer then had time to draw his own gun and fire several shots while the teen didn't fire a single shot.
IF HYPOTHESIS B IS FACTUAL, THEN WE ARE FACING AN EPISODE OF UNJUSTIFIED USE OF LETHAL FORCE BY POLICE.
Either way, it is too early to rush to judgment. Does anybody have information, pictures, or footage that might endorse or support hypothesis A or hypothesis B?
Thanks. I hadn't read a summary like this anywhere. Still many open questions.