Do you condemn the officer who not only expressly refused to allow the young man answering the door to secure the dog, but who shot and killed it?
Are you serious? Is that what this is all about? Because of my experience somehow it’s I’m siding with the police officer. WOW! Are you always like that - taking one thing and stretching it into what you are thinking?
The kid acted very responsible - more responsible than the cop because the cop should have taken a clue and been wise enough that dogs don’t always take kindly to strangers. So much for your mind reading. Now I see what this was all about with continually ignoring my ‘in my experience’ for surely there was much more behind that. You FAIL big time. Even the kid has more sense than you - your ‘jump to conclusion’ fits in more with the cop.
The jury took care of condmening the police officer’s killing of a harmless pet and they condemned the supervising officer who was responsible for creating the police home invasion on innocent people.
It does not matter what any police brutality excuse maker says. The justice system finally let it be known that cops can’t kill whomever they claim is a “threat” to them. Pets and people.
Every time these obvious cases of excessive force and improper invasion occurs, there should be a trial. Prosecutors are falling down on their jobs to let so many killings go unprosecuted. They are enraging the public and turning too many against all cops. American policing has become wild west “justice” because the rule of law has been undermined by unions and politicans. In the wild west, cops are not safe either.