that story changed early and often, until they found a tale that matched the video...
the final one, if i understand it correctly, is the injun was attempting to defuse what he perceived as a aggressive action by the boys and by interjecting himself between the two groups.. 'perceived' being the operative word, which makes it a point that can't be fairly addressed.
... if those boys can show actual damages because of the media, no matter if the media retracts or not they can be held liable- and the retraction (if any) actually assists them in that case. damages have to be proven.