A few questions I have are the following:
1. Since all dogs are potential threats, why were the car doors left open thereby allowing an avenue for the dog to attack?
2. The cops knew a dog was in the car. Why did they not make an assessment as to the size and breed, both by asking the Smoaks and by sight? Big difference between a Chihuahua and a Rottweiler as to threat potential.
3. Is it SOP to have just one video camera recording with several units on the scene?
4. Was Officer Hall aware of the video camera's field of vision? He had just stepped outside of it's field when he shot the dog.
Everyone involved needs to be cross examined under oath to get these and other points clarified.
This story has captured the national spotlight and the internet will help keep it there over the coming weeks and months.
This I know: Officer Hall is lying through his crooked teeth about what happened. The other Cookesville officer's statement was similiar to Hall's. The THP officers were busy with the Smoaks and probably didn't see very much. Three seconds is not very long, after all.
I hope the Smoaks' lawyer gets better video analysts than the media's. The press claims Hall was backing up because the dog approached him, but the video shows Hall moving sideways and back the instant the dog left the car. The dog wasn't approaching Hall when Hall moved backward; the dog was running straight ahead. He is lying. Everything Hall says the dog was doing to him was what Hall himself was doing to the dog.
I do hope you're right about the spotlight. I'd like to know what eventually pans out. I'd also like to know the circumstances of Hall's other dog killings, but don't have time to dig out the facts.
First of all, not all police forces utilize video cameras in the police cars. I suspect that the since the video was released by the THP that they do and the Cookeville PD does not. It is also possible that none of the other cameras (if there were any) were not in position to show the activity. The THP car was the one that did the stop and the one most likely to have its camera in the best position to cover it.
4. Was Officer Hall aware of the video camera's field of vision? He had just stepped outside of it's field when he shot the dog.
What you saw was an artifact of a television station editor, who for misguided reasons of fear of offending viewers, edited and CROPPED the video to exclude the actual killing. The first video linked to FreeRepublic that I saw was a non-moving camera camera that showed the complete incident from the moment the car left the highway until the aftermath of the shooting. In that video, the officer's shot is in full view as is the dog being hit while in midleap at Officer Hall. In fact, it shows Hall RETREATING before the on coming dog before he fires at it as it jumps at him. One other edited version of this raw footage I have seen on TV omits other important events. The result of this editing is that Hall is shown in the worst possible light: i.e. "stepped outside of its field before shooting."