The metallic object was a camera. It did not disappear.
The Japanese kid's friends said that he had a habit of running at people to give them hugs. Also, he was not wearing his contacts, which is why he didn't see the gun.
Knowing the facts makes it more plausible. Not that you care to hear the facts when you're on a good anti-America rant.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If I were on an anti-American rant I would have condemned the guy whose story started the thread. But don't let fact and logic get in your way when you're defending the indefensible.
The whole story has a very bad, concocted-in-the-lawyer's-office, ex post facto smell about it. It is obvious the lawyer, having dug up every scrap of information he had about the victim, came up with one little nugget that would look like shit to the average man on the street, but was solid 24-carat gold to a good criminal defence attorney. Yoshihiro Hattori was an affectionate young man who loved to run up to his friends to hug them. Beautiful.
HIS FRIENDS. He ran up to his friends to hug them. The evidence that he would run up to a total stranger, a female, in a strange house, to hug her too, is pure fantasy. Legally, if you're an unethical lawyer, it is close to genius, however. So Hattori runs up to this strange woman, whom he's never seen before, to hug her. And what does she do in response to this friendly overture? Retreats and slams the fucking door in his face.
Not at all daunted by this stern rejection of his playful advances, Hattori next encounters an angry adult white man, shouting a single word at him "FREEZE!!" and pointing at him, probably with an outstretched arm, and apparently having completely forgotten his earlier rebuff, Hattori decides that the angry white man who is shouting an incomprehensible word at him also needs a big hug. Runs at him,too, and the game is over. More mileage from the words "run" and "hug" was never squeezed out from them prior to the trial of Hattori's murderer.
There were probably plenty of facts left out from even this concocted defence - - the lighting in the carport, Hattori's vision given the prevailing conditions at the time, whether it's likely or not that he would have not recognized the object in his killer's hand as a weapon and the actual physical appearance (shape, size, colour) of the weapon itself. Was the killer in a shooter's stance, was he pointing the gun at arm's length, how far was Hattori from the gun when it was fired, what was the physical appearance of Hattori's camera, how was it being held, pointed at the killer or hanging down at the end of Hattori's arm?
The other big question of course, which was raised in the post previous to this, was what kind of moron goes out with a loaded handgun to investigate a report of kids in his car-port? He precipitated the entire crisis and made a fatal outcome a distinct possibility the moment he walked out with a loaded gun in his hand. And over what? the possible theft of a hood ornament from his car? Here in Canada we have an offence, criminal negligence causing death. That is the LEAST that this schmuck could have been convicted of and IMHO should have been convicted of.
