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.
The liberal slant was the degree of raving based on one media article without waiting for sufficient evidence as if it is an open and shut case. Personally, I can wait a little for reasonable evidence and do not demand that the emotion and the MSM be the arbiters here.