Wrong. The use of deadly force was not authorized here. The cops life was not in immediate danger. The people were on the ground, secured and handcuffed. The dog was NOT in attack stance, it was not running and did not display the typical aggressive signals.
It is a cop-out to say the officer did not know better. He should have known better. He has the power and the authority here, he da*n well better have the responsibility and accountability. And he will be held responsible. If not, then it will be proved again that LEOs are above the law, and no longer hold to their oath to protect and serve the citizens of the United States.
I would suggest you review the clip one more time. Dogs don't necessarily "sprint" to a target when they attack. This dog appears to be heading for the officer that was not in the camera frame right from the get go. The officer backs up into the frame and shoots at what "appears" to be the dog lunging at him (There's a light object that comes into the picture and stops when the gun goes off, I'm assuming that's the dog)
Typical aggressive signs? Just what are "typical agressive signs"? Do you mean the officer has to literally have the dog's mouth around his throat before he can shoot?
BTW, all this happened in three seconds. Check the timer on the screen, there wasn't much time to do any "prancing around" as some were suggesting.