Really? Two officers - one has the dog running in his/her direction - the other officer reacts to protect the first! There is no issue here with respect to the location of the head shot. If there had been a violent perp approaching one cop in a threatening manner, and the other cop shot the perp in the back to protect his/her partner, there would be no issue with the shoot. The ONLY question in this case is whether or not the dog presented a threat. The story states that there were witnesses who supported the position of the officer who shot the dog. The only ones questioning the decision, based on what the article indicated, was the owner of the dog, who definitely has a biased position.
Really. That does not even make sense.
Tell me Mr. Dad, if the officer the dog was allegedly moving towards and threatening, why did that officer not shoot the dog?
Why would the officer who was not threatened be the one to shoot the dog in the back of the head?