That is a rhetorical use of the word We. I will rephrase it for your convenience: “why should any person cheer on the cop for shooting the dog in the *back* of the head, a target that, of necessity, puts the student in mortal danger?”
While the person who used the word pinned may have misused the word, it is that person’s job to choose a different word that more precisely describes what happened. Since he/she chose the word “pinned”, “pinned” is the word I will go with.
If one is not literally pinned, then words and phrases such as “cornered” or “held at bay” would be apropros. But the person who insisted that the student was “pinned” did not elect to use another phrase, so barring evidence to the contrary, I will assume he/she is telling the truth.
It took the officer some time to get to the scene. Therefore, we can conclude that the dog was there for several minutes before the officer arrived on the scene. Several minutes of a German shepherd NOT attacking anyone. Several minutes of NO bite or attack reports. (Odd, for an “aggressive” dog, isn’t it?)
This scenario should have ended with a dog on a catchpole and a fined owner, not a dead dog.
The above changes nothing. I still did not "cheer" on the cop. I do not believe anyone else on this thread indicated that they "cheered" on the cop. I also see zero evidence from you that supports your contention that the LEO placed anyone, other than the animal, in mortal danger.
Regardless of which word the "person" used, you have no evidence that the dog "pinned" anyone in a physical sense. Without such evidence, you also lack evidence the officer placed anyone in mortal danger, other than the animal shot.
I read nothing that indicated that the officer was not already on the campus when this incident began. Again, facts not in evidence. Additional facts not in evidence that you are "assuming" is that the dog was not aggressive. When you have actual evidence, not mere speculation on your part, get back to me. Otherwise, I'm on to another topic elsewhere.