The point is the cops needed probable cause to stop the guy and demand anything of him. What was “probable cause”?
No, they didn’t need probable cause. They only need an “articulable suspicion” for a stop and a pat-down. They may well have had enough for probable cause even for a more thorough search here, it is hard to say.
When responding to a shots fired call in the vicinity, they likely have an articulable suspicion to stop anyone they see in that vicinity. How exactly would you have the cops respond to a shots fired call at your house? If they pull up and see a suspicious person standing on the sidewalk, should they stop him and ask him what he is doing, or just tell you tough luck?
In this case, the officers believed he had a gun. It is hard to tell from how the article is phrased, but that might be because he had his hand in his shirt. Easy case for articulable suspicion - a good stop.
In any event, he did have a gun, and pulled it out. He chose poorly.
They were responding to a shoots fired call. There could have been a description of the shooter and he matched the description. Wait for the investigation to be completed. Audio tapes will come into play. I’m sure both officers were wearing recorders. Could possibly be video available also. There will also be autopsy results.
No they don't; they need only reasonable suspicion to make a stop. In a high-crime area, any suspicious behaviour constitutes reasonable suspicion to make a stop. If the person does not respond to the stop, that automatically triggers probable cause to make an arrest and use force if warranted. Also, it's unlikely that the dog was sent at the perp if the perp was not doing anything. If the perp wasn't stopping or was reaching for his pocket--that's enough to send the dog on him (though I do agree that I don't like using animals in dangerous situations; nevertheless, it's one of the main points of even having police dogs).
I think the cops' story rings truer just on its face. Police dogs don't just attack people; and cops don't just sic dogs on people for the hell of it. I believe the guy had a gun in plain view, the cops told the dog to disarm, and the creep killed the dog.
The reason why police dogs are considered police officers in most states is pretty obvious. You cannot absolve yourself of resisting arrest by claiming that the police dog was intimidating you. It's not like the dogs are on patrol by themselves--they are accompanied by human officers. If a cop tells you to lie down or put your hands in the air, and you don't the dog is just an extension of the human police officer and must be accorded the same level of deference. If police dogs were not treated as police officers under the law, it would expose the human officers using such dogs to enormous risk.