I have a bias. It involves LEOs shooting individuals with no prior history of law breaking. I do understand that good guys can "snap" and if the deceased pointed a gun a the officer, your assessment of an agitated state following the dog attack seems like the most plausible.Excaliber wrote: One factor that bears consideration is that the deceased may have been in an agitated state immediately after shooting an attacking dog, and that may have contributed to the officer's perception of a threat to his safety.
Then I see the great lengths that LE goes to in situations like the one where the man shot a school bus driver and kidnapped a child. While ultimately, the outcome was the same as this one, the situation was given time to develop into a different outcome.
The recent prisoner escape that ended fatally for the escapee in Grapevine was probably as it needed to be. The BG involved had already proved that he was a danger to LE and that he had no intention of going back to prison. That is in sharp contrast to this incident, however. I think every time an otherwise GG is killed by police, the incident should be carefully dissected to see if there wasn't a way to come up with a better outcome. If the deceased was in an agitated state, it would seem better to withdraw, call for backup and attempt to descalate the matter than to rush in and invade the man's personal space. To me, the matter went South there. Maybe I'm too naive, but I don't see the urgency in the investigation of a dog shooting that was worth a man's life.