By that standard we should not allow cops to carry guns, batons or tazers, since they are not qualified to judge whether a person is a danger or not.
A police dog is a lesser use of force than the gun. They tried to save his worthless life by trying to disarm him with a dog. They could have just shot him without releasing the dog. He'd be just as dead, but the dog would still be alive.
This dog died trying to save the deceased from his own stupidity. How sad is that?
Just one more thing to note...from the local reports...the dog would have responded to the ‘stand down’ command. He would not have mauled Jackson. He was in a ‘disarm’ move.
Or is an armed citizen moving to use his weapon against police a menace requiring disarmament...?
While these are split-second decisions--and the officers must be given the discretion to act--unless we question them later, then we are destined to move to the wrong choice. Heck, I'll never be on a jury in part because I answer that I'm more likely to trust the testimony of a police officer because of his profession (which includes training, etc.), but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be careful against knee-jerk responses!
The difference is that dogs are BVR (beyond visual range) tools, and tasers, guns, batons are not. They are often employed where the officer can not see and control the animal and the officer is unclear of what is actually going on inside the building etc.
You are supporting the key point which is that dogs are not “cops” and killing them is not the same as killing an LEO.