Considering that almost one in two households has a dog, some of them will get loose by accident now and then. No matter how small the probability, just because of the sheer numbers. A community-minded, caring LEO would not see a dog at large as free game.

Did they verify what the neighbor had to say, at least after the fact? Was there a complaint on record? And almost any dog will bite if provoked by a hostile individual.

The neighbor also SURELY told him the dog was on his OWN property when he shot the dog. He had no right to shoot. Don't they also carry non-lethal means of protection?

In the meantime he could have gotten into his car and: found the phone number of the dog's owner; made a call; and had the dog taken off the street by someone the dog would have responded to! Are you telling me cops don't come equipped with cell phones and the means to find telephone numbers?

Also, why would he simply take the neighbor's word for a dog bite? MANY people don't like dogs and are all too willing to see every one of the neighbors' dogs removed somehow. Again, he has a car radio and a phone. Isn't he smart enough to use either?

Cops use the charging aggressively, barking, growling, etc, excuses all the time when they shoot family dogs. Look it up. You'll find their stories amazingly the same, even when the dog they're scare of is a Chihuahua.

So let me get this straight- You think that it is appropriate for a uniformed police officer to run away from a dog charging at him or her? Dogs run faster than humans esp. humans laden with 20-25 lbs of police gear. Even if the cop made it to his car, what does that solve? You still have a dog that charged a person on the loose. Let's assume that the officer made it to the car. While he is waiting to get in contact with the owner, the dog decides to bite a child walking home from school. Imagine your howls of outrage then! "Why didn't the cop do something?! How irresponsible of him to think of his safety first! Think of the children!" etc, etc, etc.

If you read the article, you'll see that the cop didn't take the neighbor's word on the dog's past behavior. He only shot the dog after it charged him. Also, so what if the dog was on the owner's property? Do you think that the dog knows where the property line is? Is the dog thinking "Well as long as I only run to the property line and stop, I'll be OK."?

Why would you try so hard to paint up a picture showing tremendous sense of urgency? Your argument is pretty much that the police can shoot dogs just in case, based not on what has happened but on what might happen. Of course under such standard, it is not possible for the shooter to be in the wrong wrong. Is that he idea?

Ever been charged by an 80-lb german shepard? I'll bet you get a sense of urgency pretty quick. And yes, the cops can shoot a dog "just in case". The cop was told that the dog has bitten someone in the past, the dog charged the officer, the officer shot the dog to protect himself, end of story.
In addition, your comment "And almost any dog will bite if provoked by a hostile individual." How was the cop a hostile individual? He stopped to investigate a dog on the loose. That's not hostile. that's doing his job.

Allowing to shoot a dog just in case is the same as allowing them to do as they please, no questions asked (which some people are actually quite comfortable with).

Abt, you make me tired. Again, the dog CHARGED the officer. If a dog charged you, would you stand there and wait for him to bite you? Or would you run, throw something at it, hit it with a stick, shoot it, etc? It's very easy to sit around and criticize a police officer for actions that a) you didn't witness and b) you are Monday-morning quarterbacking from behind your computer. Read some Supreme Court decisions on use-of-force (start with Graham v. Connor) and then get back to me. Oh, maybe try being a cop for awhile, while you're at it, and see how it feels to be criticized by the public for your actions.

And what I find tiring is your own circular logic (the shooting was justified because it happened), but you can't possibly see that. Well, If you're tired, just take a break.

Acting like a hostile occupier, rather than a decent individual who cares about the community and considers non-lethal options, certainly creates more problems than it resolves (if there was one if the first place). And please remember that the owner is stating that the shooting occurred on their property.

Yes, there wasn't time to call animal control nor did the situation allow it.

Here was a dog that, according to the neighbor, REGULARLY escaped from the backyard and was known to be aggressive (including attacking/biting others) -- yet the owner left it in the yard (again) unsupervised. I don't know what an "hostile occupier" is (or what it has to do with this situation) but this dog is a potential danger to the community when loose. And It was loose. Then it aggressively charged a police officer.

I have 3 dogs (all adopted from shelters). I don't want them or any dog to be injured. That is why I try to be a responsible pet owner. That means proper training (to curb aggression) and supervision (if your dog regularly gets out of your yard, then supervise your dog or don't let him out there). When people aren't responsible pet owners, it is the pet and others who suffer.

tniehoff, 'according to the neighbor' who may or may not have disliked dogs in general. My former neighbor called the police when our other neighbor's Siberian Husky puppy escaped and slipped through our fence to come into my yard to play with our Lab mix. She called the police when the Basset Hound behind me escaped--the dog was 11 years old and had a bad back and arthritis and wasn't a danger to anything that wasn't poured into her food dish. She called the police when the German Shepherd puppy across the street escaped too. And according to her, ALL of those dogs (including my three who have NEVER escaped the yard and try to get the meter readers, mail carrier and UPS delivery guys to play fetch with them) are vicious and trying to kill someone simply by existing.

thank you

Well, that certainly cuts both ways.

Obviously? Has it been documented? Besides, the heart of the matter is whether or not it really was urgent to shoot the dog.

Well, your underlying problem seems to be that you give to much of the benefit of the doubt to the police, despite there being a clear pattern of unwarranted dog shootings (even in much more egregious circumstances). I wasn't sure it had to be pointed out, but apparently you haven't done your homework. You're welcome.

And 38 people killed by dogs in 2012. That number includes only the ones documented on this site.

http://www.dogsbite.org/dog-bite-statistics-fatalities-2012.php

That site is run by kooks. But anyway, the point is that LE will shoot the dog even in its own yard (and even a small breed).

In the same vein, it easy to make up strawman arguments when you are sitting at home on your computer, keeping your head in the sand about what is happening in the world around you.

You still don't get it, not that I was hoping that you would.