I am amazed at your lack of reasoning at this point. Not much point in posting to you.
A dead dog is not reasonable evidence that a crime was committed against the family. If it was, no individual could ever try to kill or maim a dog that attacked them, ever. Rottwieller ripping your 5 year old apart? Well don’t hurt the dog! It is not evidence of wrong doing - it is evidence that the cop shot the dog. It is a tragedy that must be investigated and if the copy is guilty, then he must be held accountable.
MUST you interpret all information in the article in a manner that supports your biases?
“It’s OK, I’m a cop.” You interpret that to mean “I get to kill the dog because I am a cop” but it may mean “Don’t be afraid of the man with the gun, I am licensed and trained to have one and I am not here to hurt you.”
“It attacked me.”
“It attacked my wife.”
“It attacked me, my wife, and my dog”.
All statements can be true and are not mutually exclusive. The first 2 statements may reflect chronology and the 3rd may be a summary but I don’t know that until I know more.
I won’t ask you to think logically because it is clear you don’t want to - all incoming information will be interpreted to support your bias. I want objective information and you don’t. What more have we to say to one another?
“What person, after shooting an animal justifiably would believe his or her occupation germane to relate to the owners of said animal?” Obviously someone firing a weapon will be regarded with extreme caution until it is know whether they are even allowed to have a gun, are trained to use it, or used professional training to make a decision to use it. It wouldn’t remove my all my fear to know that someone is a cop but it helps narrow my concerns and helps me know what to expect behaviors and he was talking to a frightened kid so that was meant to reassure. He is supposed to identify himself as a cop, isn’t he? But hey, don’t let unknowns slow you down. Prosecute based on a media article. Just when did your faith in the media grow exponentially? Thanks, I’ll wait for actual evidence of wrong doing.
You believe a legitimate interpretation is “Don’t be afraid of the man with the gun who just discharged it with you at close range?”
Based on the testimony of the 12 year old eyewitness, the dog wasn’t attacking any of the human or canine parties involved.
The officer attacked the dog, according to all parties involved. Only the officer, not the dog, is documented to have acted aggressively.
The same officer has been changing his story since that time.
The so called “attacking” dog was shot in the neck. A charging dog shot in the neck? Not on the head or between the eyes?
And, of course, the matter has been “internally investigated” and ruled to be justified. The government employee will not be charged.
And that is the crux of the problem: government employees are allowed to investigate themselves, and you are perfectly content to wait for them to do so.
When you have actual documentation of the “injuries”, let me know.
But consider this: the same officer can make up an excuse about being “threatened” by you, and shoot you with impunity.