The L.A. Times runs a story titled: Protests Follow Police Shooting of Unarmed Boy. The sub-head reads: “LAPD internal affairs has begun its investigation into whether the officer’s actions were in line with department policy.” And the first paragraph reads:

Angry residents today protested the police shooting of an unarmed boy in South Los Angeles on Sunday morning after police said the 13-year-old auto theft suspect backed his car toward an officer.

Wow. They shot him, and all he did was back his car toward the officer? That sounds bad.

Except that, that isn’t what happened. He didn’t just back his car “toward” an officer. He backed his car into a police car. In other words, he hit the police car.

Into. Not toward. Into.

The L.A. Times story does (sort of) get around to reporting this — eventually. After quoting numerous people on the street talking about how awful and dangerous the police are, we are told:

[Police Commission President David] Cunningham visited the site of the shooting Sunday afternoon, and said the police cruiser was badly dented and scratched, apparently from the impact of the stolen car.

Of course, we here at the Los Angeles Times have no way of knowing whether this is actually true. Was the car actually badly dented from the impact? Heck if we know. All we can tell you is that some guy said so. What are you asking us to do: check out his claim to see if it’s true??

I saw the story on the local news last night. They showed the dent in the patrol car. It wasn’t the biggest dent you’ve ever seen, but the kid definitely hit the car.

Look. I am not thrilled by the fact that LAPD appears to kill any driver who drives a car at a patrol vehicle. Like Chief Bratton, I have serious doubts about whether such shootings are really justified.

But the question is a much closer one if you are told the damn facts up front.

But that wouldn’t make a very compelling story, would it?

UPDATE: The next story is even worse.