You can judge the size and the breed. It's not a pit bull. Were it a pit bull, I would be far less ready to condemn someone for shooting it on sight. It's not a huge dog, like a German Shepard or a Rottweiler.
It would be painful if it bit you, but it cannot hardly threaten to do any serious bodily injury to a full grown man.
Dogs act much differently when not in the presence of their owner.
I've known many who were little aggressive sh*ts whether their owner was present or not.
Dogs, genetically, have the capacity of being aggressive and dangerous. A bite from even a small dog can cause significant damage, especially if infection sets in.
That's not a serious likelihood in this day and age.
Owners have the legal responsibility to control their dog. They are responsible for what their dog does.
Sure. *IF* their dog does something. Do we have any evidence that this dog did something? She said his pants wasn't even torn.
If he had bite marks, or even a ripped pants leg, I would say shooting the dog was a perfectly reasonable thing to do. As near as I can tell, he's got nothing.
I have repeatedly encountered owners who deny any responsibility for their dog's actions, even after incontrovertible proof their dogs did enormous damage, usually to livestock, but occasionally to humans.
Me too. @$$holes abound in our lives.
"It would be painful if it bit you, but it cannot hardly threaten to do any serious bodily injury to a full grown man."
Not true.