You are too quick to label all of this her fault.
You have put forth a snap judgement that I see as ill considered.
While all of your criticism of her may be true (we don't know yet), it does not exonerate a man who pulled out a gun and shot an animal that has not been demonstrated to have been dangerous.
The legal system uses a concept called the "reasonable man" standard. Would a reasonable man just shoot a dog that had not actually attacked him?
I don't believe any "reasonable man" would do such a thing.
Also, is it possible this man is a Muslim and is motivated by the well known Muslim hatred for dogs? Is this in fact a hate crime perpetrated by religious extremism?
As I said, I think you are too quick to blame the woman and you haven't given enough consideration to the entire picture.
The legal system uses a concept called the "reasonable man" standard. Would a reasonable man just shoot a dog that had not actually attacked him?
The police, who investigated, believe otherwise.
You are assuming the dog "has not been demontrated to have been dangerous".
A reasonable man could easily shoot an aggressive dog which is showing all signs of being willing to bite him, before it actually bites him.
Most states have laws which allow people to shoot dogs which are running loose if the dog threatens them.
I find it interesting the door camera is reported to be down by the dog owner. They control any video which might exist. They have good reason to claim their is no video if it shows their dog being aggressive.
"Merle the Muslim"? Doesn't sound right.
Still if the driver felt threatened couldn't he have used dog spray or some other repellent?
“Would a reasonable man just shoot a dog that had not actually attacked him?”
ROTFLMAO!!!
If it’s the POLICE answering this question then the answer is YES!!!
It’s always YES.
“Cops are like a box of chocolates; they’ll kill your dog!”
If you’ve got a potentially lethal dog charging at you, at what point can you defend yourself?