OK, if that is your point, then I agree. There is no evidence here that conclusively shows what happened. We don't know what the status of the weapon was, and we certainly don't know whether the kid pointed it at anyone. Neither do we know that he didn't.

Basically, I don't trust a single journalist's description enough on these things to draw any solid conclusion. Most of the journalist's reports I have seen thus far are more or less sloppy and inaccurate. That's not necessarily their fault, it is just that very few journalists have any military training. I therefore wouldn't make anything of his use of the term RPG, and nor the soldier's since that just conforms to normal lingo.

More importantly, like eyewitnesses reports to the police after a cime, what he thinks he saw, and what he actually saw may not be quite the same thing. One report therefore doesn't tell us enough to dissect what really happened.

On prior practice (e.g. Somalia), if the situation is in any way doubtful, there will be an investigation at some later point when things have calmed down. I do not presume to prejudge that investigation (if there is one) in any way. However, if that investigation concludes that this was an armed civilian (even a child), it will conclude that the civilian was in fact a combatant and a threat to the troops in the area. If so, he was a legitimate target and the soldier was right to shoot. If that is the case, then the legal and moral culpability for this child's death lies with those who pressed a child into military service, not with the soldier confronted with a horrible dilemma.