Since you are an ex cop, and give so much credence to the eyewitness, how many cops did you know who carried their gun in their pocket?
I give "credence" to people who have nothing obvious to lose or to gain by telling their side of the story. The cop's reaction is going to be to try to protect his career. By the owners' standards, NOTHING would have justified the shooting of their dog.
The neighbor witnessed the event as a third party, and unless his story is found to be contrived, carries more weight than either the officer's or the pet owners.
Your sarcastic reply reflects either a penchant for picking fights or a blind faith in law enforcement to always do the right thing.
Also, the article said "WITNESSES" said the dog jumped up on him in a friendly way. Not just this Mercer guy. Unless the owners have multiple observers in their pockets, some "credence" should be given to what they said.
Granted, there *could* be extenuating circumstances which justify the shooting, but if the facts of the article are correct, and the witnesses reported what they saw even somewhat accurately the cop was out of line.
Another poster made the comment that many detectives or plainclothed cops use a pancake holster or a shoulder holster. To a bystander, it could very well appear he pulled the weapon from his pocket.