Replies

I never said he backed out of view.

Oh? When the dog left the car Hall is backing up while the dog is not headed towards him like you said. Then they both go out of view."

Then you say Hall is backing up when comes *back* in view of the camera. That's absurd. If moving backward would take him out of camera range, it certainly wouldn't put him back in camera range from where he was positioned. Look again at the direction Hall headed in when the dog left the car. He is moving to the left from his right.

I'm done with the subject.

Look again at the direction Hall headed in when the dog left the car. He is moving to the left from his right.

That's your evidence that Hall was going after the dog? A few steps towards it (which also happened to be towards the car)? No wonder you refuse to admit he was backing up when he shot the dog. That would ruin your case.

The unedited tape shows Officer Hall facing toward the left, covering the arresting officers as they handcuff the suspected felons. He then steps FORWARD, reaches out to the closest officer holding the last person out of the car, stretches and hands the officer a set of handcuffs, and then steps BACKWARDS, still covering the suspects. At this moment the dog gets out of the car.

Officer Hall, still facing the arrest scene and covering the arrestees while the arresting officer bends down to shackle his prisoner, backs slightly out of the frame as the dogs heads also out of frame in the distance, curving toward Officer Hall's position.

Officer Hall turns, and then rapidly steps backwards BACK into the frame as the dog (depending on whose story is being told) lunges and leaps either aggressively toward Hall, or playfully toward his gun mounted flashlight . As Hall collides with the arresting officer behind him, he fires ONE SHOT from the shotgun at the dog in mid-leap, knocking the dog to the ground, probably killing the dog instantly.

This is what a dispassionate observer will see when they look at the RAW, unedited video tape.