I wasn’t there. Why would you expect me to know the details of what and why and how things occurred in this incident? You weren’t there either. You are taking a position based upon your opinions and speculations, which, of course, you are entitled to have. You cannot have your own set of facts, though, especially facts not witnessed yourself. I reiterated the facts as reported in the story, then speculated a reason for how the dog MIGHT have been shot in the back of the head - which is a plausible possibility. If you want to know why one officer fired, and not the other, I guess you’ll need to ask the two officers who were at the scene.
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?
You are taking a position based upon your opinions and speculations
Wait a minute Mr. Dad...You're the one who speculated and stated, "Two officers - one has the dog running in his/her direction - the other officer reacts to protect the first!"
Where did you get this?
The article never said a word about this.
In fact, unlike your comments, my comments were based strictly on what the article stated.