Apparently you have reading comprehension difficulties. I said let’s wait for impartial evidence and you say I should have read something other than the article to which I was responding before I posted?
I didn’t say the boy can’t be believed or a cop can’t make the wrong choice. I said that I was shocked that evidence is not needed on this thread and given the degree to which ideology and emotion ‘rule’ on it, I was sad to see what looked like a DU thread here.
The doberman that pinned me to a fence and ripped off the necklace at my throat just as he was hauled off of me was also a baby that rolled around on the carpet playing with doggie toys as long as he knew the people present and they didn’t bring another dog.
What I’ve read often enough is that the ‘fun lovin’ dog attacks another dog over unspecified canine grudges and the owner tries to intercede and then the dog attacks the owner. In those instances it is necessary to pick up your dog and just throw it to the attacking dog (sacrafice it) if you want to escape being repeatedly attacked (particularly if you try to hold your dog up out of reach).
So in the unfortunate attack of one dog on another - which dog should be spared? The one that was helpless to escape because it was on a leash or the one that was unrestrained, attacked and threatens/bites the owner?
That’s just one possible scenario - I don’t know what happened so I am not willing to say that the cop is innocent or guilty. But don’t let the opinions of people who weren’t present (like Fidel Castillo or Casey Keltch) influence ya. Don’t slow down because NO TIME can be wasted on impartial evaluation because the dog is dead - we must decide in the course of 10 minutes.
Several posters here have asked for evidence corroborating the cop’s story.
None has been provided. The posters have been mocked for demanding it.
The available evidence involves a dead dog, and the eyewitness testimony of a 12 year old child who has no motivation to lie about the course of events.
Since the officer shot the dog, the burden of proof rests on him to establish the shooting was justified.
Based on the information provided and the comments, this officer has been less than truthful. Moreover, he appears to have a history of changing his story in this case.
The moment you choose to fire a weapon, you had best have a solid case for doing so.
Changing one’s excuse for firing one’s weapon in close proximity to children doesn’t suggest one had a solid case for doing so.
Any time a government employee fires his or her weapon, his story should *always* be met with fierce scrutiny.
Evidence demonstrating the cop’s guilt is a dead dog which, according to eyewitness testimony, was sniffing another dog. Hardly shocking or dangerous canine behavior.
Desiring government employees to be held under close scrutiny is a conservative viewpoint, not a liberal one.