I thought the same thing.

For a brief second after sam shot the kid I thought that that was williams brother I dont know why I only saw the pic for a brief second but then I quickly disproved it.
Lose the Game!!!!!!!

The kid Sam shot and killed was a kid! That's why he was mortified by what he had done. Here he is trying to save children and he's gone and blown the brains out of one. You don't need much more explanation than what was shown.

If anyone is still reading this thread, you should know that the boy, "William," did/does exist, and they never found his brother. I and a group of my friends had a little conversation with Sam two days after the Red Carpet premiere in Hollywood in September, 2011, and Sam told us about "William." His name was changed in the movie, to protect his identity. If you read his book, you'll find out a lot of things in Sam's life were changed for the movie, as it is done with most books that are made into movies. But the gist of his life is there. He's not proud of the way he was before he found religion, but he's trying to make up for all of that now.

I don't think the boy actually existed as a real person, I think he's a metaphor for the many people similar tragedies have happened to. As squigee07 said, most boys in this situation never see their families again, so if he is indeed a metaphor, it's best not to show it.
'Days of London' - An Olympic Games-themed tribute to Tony Scott: http://tinyurl.com/bbbkfxf

no. That boy's brother is sadly dead or in an army somewhere. Having him reunite with his brother would be "hollywood" - and this film was anything but.
Hollywood does not release: controversial African genocide films, with ex-drug using come-found again Christian Preachers saving said orphans, and killing in the name of a personal cause right or wrong. I'm surprised the budget was green lit for 30$MM, so it leads me to believe it was intended for other things than revenue.

Just seen this movie and wondered the same thing.
So can anyone share any insight into this?