It might have attacked the people, it might not have. The sparse information provided in a news article which may or may not be accurate is not enough to know for sure. But don't let that stop you from making up your mind.
Given the lack of provided evidence, it is logical to assume the dog’s owners, and by extension, their dog is innocent of the crime of assaulting a human.
Given the evidence that the officer *did* shoot the dog, the burden of proof is on those supporting the government employee to demonstrate the shooting as justified.
So, how about it? What is the evidence that the government employee was injured?
Officer Mark Condon flat out said the dog did attack, and that the attack caused injuries. He also said these injuries were documented:
_____________________________________________________________
"all three of us sustained injuries from the attack, which were documented by the Precinct 4 Constables' Office."
_____________________________________________________________
It's been a week. Why is he not releasing the evidence?