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.
Your difficulties comprehending what I’ve written (or are you distorting what I’ve written on purpose), what is written in the newspapers, and the biased information and interpretations that you seem to actually propose as “facts” or “evidence”lead me to conclude that posting to you is pointless.