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.
You don't know what the police "believe." What they most likely believe is that they don't want to get involved in this mess.
You are assuming the dog "has not been demontrated to have been dangerous".
In dog cases of which I am familiar, there is a standard of past behavior that usually applies. If a dog has bitten people before, than the dog may be presumed dangerous, but with no know history of aggression, dogs are not usually considered 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.
And we have no way of knowing at this point if this dog displayed any of that. Most people would simply back away and get in their vehicle. I have been confronted by aggressive dogs, and I simply kick the sh*t out of them.
Most states have laws which allow people to shoot dogs which are running loose if the dog threatens them.
I suspect this is California, but the location wasn't given that I can see. I don't know what the laws of California are regarding loose dogs, but i'm pretty clear on what they are about loose guns. They frown on that a great deal.
I find it interesting the door camera is reported to be down by the dog owner.
That is interesting, and tends to indicate she is lying. More like it shows the dog behaving aggressively and justifies his shooting of the dog.
I don't have any of these "ring" cameras, but I have never heard of them needing to be "charged." I thought they worked off of house power.
That little tidbit does indeed smell to me.
They control any video which might exist. They have good reason to claim their is no video if it shows their dog being aggressive.
Exactly, and people have no qualms about lying or withholding evidence to get the result they want.
But the absence of video doesn't disprove her claim unless it can be demonstrated she's lying about her camera needing to be charged.
Also, perhaps video may emerge from a neighbor's house or perhaps he recorded the incident himself.
Per the article, the camera was charging inside at the time.