The 'original' damning 'evidence' of "the cop shot the kid in the back" / "the cop shot the kid in the back while he was running away" was disproven through physical evidence investigation - isn't it interesting how (un)reliable witnesses can be?
Personally though, I don't think the crux of the matter has anything to do with a kid being shot, it's something far deeper which won't be resolved through the judicial system nor through fencing of stolen tv's.