I'm going to respond to this imagining everyone as grey blobs because color is not the issue here. First off, this was a chain reaction. Even if the cosplayer had earbuds in, was blasting music, he still had his eyes to notice the cops and the instinct to run from them. I'm not saying he was guilty of anything, but innocent people don't run from the cops. It's common knowledge. You don't even have to be smart to know not to do that. Next situation, he could have just dropped his weapon to show that he wasn't a threat.

Then there's the other side as I'm considering both. The cops shot him because he ran... or was black. I'm not the cops. I don't know what was on their minds at the time. I agree that shooting is not the way to go with a running suspect, but it's possible that had he still been holding the sword that they thought was real, they obviously wouldn't want to get close to it, thus keeping their distance.

In the end, it could have saved his life if he didn't run. Seeing how he did, the cops could have reacted better than shooting him. In other words, there's no point in taking a side here. There's not enough facts to really justify one thing over the other.

Buhman said the police didn’t have enough time to attempt nonlethal force because the 37-second incident escalated so quickly and without provocation.

“The officers had to do with what was most immediately available to them — that was their firearms,” Buhman said.

i dont think you read the article closely- it says he ran after they started firing at him. he was swinging around the sword or whatever so they took it as a threat and started firing.

from statements he was "laughing and smiling and swinging it towards officers, tho it was a fake cosplay sword." to the officers he appeared violent, and they believed the sword was real. so they shot him cause they thought he might "hack the first person he saw"

i think its clear it would not have happened had he not run, and they seem to want to establish it wouldnt have happened he not acted like a punk- tho this is not verified. witness reports say he "unsheathed" the sword but did not swing it.  but either way, it does not excuse what happened.

Quote

Buhman said the police didn’t have enough time to attempt nonlethal force because the 37-second incident escalated so quickly and without provocation.

“The officers had to do with what was most immediately available to them — that was their firearms,” Buhman said.

didnt have time to attempt nonlethal force so they killed him, lol

That's a bogus thing to say too.
The thing is that we don't know exactly what happened. JMM just pointed out the witness complained his statement was misrepresented by the police. For all we know, the guy could very well have unsheathed his sword to show it to the policemen, so they would see it was a toy sword and not sharp. This would be pretty logical, and it would fit the witness report. (of course it would have been smarter to simply give the sheathed sword to the cops so they would see for themselves and not take it as a threat, but if you know it's a toy it's easy to think you can just show them by pulling it out yourself)
Saying he was "pointing it at the cops" is a big assumption to make (a biased one) just from reading that it was unsheathed.

He was smiling and talking, he didn't think it was serious, he pulled the sword to show that it was a toy, they overreacted and drew their gun because they didn't understand that a fake sword can't possibly "hack people up", possibly immediately shot at him, he freaked out and bolted, they pursued.

Understandable, but I'm mainly speaking as if I had put myself in Hunt's shoes. Not trying to be biased towards any one side really. I'm just saying that it's definitely not a hate crime, which is what most people usually resort to when they see that it was a black kid who was the victim. To me, unsheathing a sword means that you're removing it from the sheath. Usually, this motion is a swing followed by a "ready" stance, which would be point the sword then at them. An assumption, yes, but like JMM said, there's no real facts for that since the police misrepresented the witness. So, that doesn't mean it's not that either. It just means that we don't know.

To me, unsheathing a sword means that you're removing it from the sheath. Usually, this motion is a swing followed by a "ready" stance, which would be point the sword then at them. An assumption, yes...

It's kind of absurd to say that guns can be displayed openly, but a sword a kid had been walking around with alone causes such hoopla.

I'd like to point out that the witness himself wanted to make a clear differentiation between "unsheathing" a sword and swinging it at, or pointing it at, anyone.
Secondly, when has the act of unsheathing a sword automatically implied pointing it at someone?
Thirdly, besides not entirely discerning what you mean by, 'the unsheathing  motion being a swing,' you automatically jump to, "followed by a "ready" stance, which would be point the sword then at them," which to me sounds forced and honestly, absurd. It bears the question, "Are you differentiating the actual act of "unsheathing" from what it is "followed by""?
Fourthly, just to make sure this is clear, there are things called "sword shows" where people unsheathe their swords all the time and show them to customers without pointing them at anyone or going into a ready stance (and I'd say, without swinging them too unless our definitions of "swing" happen to be different).