You are required to make a reasonable determination that an attack is imminent and that it poses a reasonable bodily threat to you.
We have only this man's word that this is the case, and I see his response as excessively disproportionate to the alleged threat he faced.
That is not correct. We have a report the police concluded he acted in self-defense.
We do not know what the police know. It might become available from something like a freedom of information act request.
I have investigated cases where the police had several previous reports of problems from a dog or dog, which they took into consideration when the dog was finally shot.
The owner(s), when self-reporting on the Internet, never mentioned all the problems their dog(s) were previously involved in.
Yes, we have more than one man's word. We have the police who investigated, conclusion the shooting was self-defense.
We have only this man’s word that this is the case, and I see his response as excessively disproportionate to the alleged threat he faced.
~~~~~
We are not considering whether or not the dog broke the law. We are considering if the shooter had no right to defend himself. You have no evidence that he did not.