Come on people get a grip, these officers were there to do deal with suspected armed robbers, not the sort of people renowned for their negotiating skills or willingness to to open front doors when they get knocked on. When you are in a situation like that all attention is focused on a safe and efficient solution to the task in hand and messing about trying to subdue a vicious dog with a biscuit or a slap with an ASP causes officers to take their attention of the targets. This in turn provides the target with the opportunity to escape or even cause harm to the officers concerned, so the efficient safe way is to eliminate the immediate threat, the dog in this case by shooting it.
As it happens in this case the dog was not shot but frightened enough to run away, and before everyone starts laughing about missing a target 5 yards away remember this is not a paper target, the shooter was not able to take his time aiming, it was a, presumably, fast moving dog, very close and getting closer, everyone on here would of course shot it straight between the eyes no bother at all. On top of that consider what happens to the dog now? chances are it will be placed in kennels until a court can decide it's fate as on the face of it there appears to be grounds for an allegation of a dangerous dog.
I remember an incident years ago when a dog, a Rotweiler, was shot during a raid on a house and the dog attacked. There was a huge internal investigation into it including a Post Mortem on the dog!
As usual in any contentious thread like this far too much "considered" opinion offered when not in possession of all the facts. These things are best left as just reported on until all of the information is in the public domain.
John
JAYB makes perfect sense in what is said here.
I will also throw in my tuppence worth.
Never, would an instruction be given to shoot to wound. So, every time a weapon is discharged at a target by the police, whether a potentially dangerous dog or human, the intention is to eliminate that threat. The only way to do that for certain is to kill it. Think back to the grilling the SAS got during the Gibraltar terrorist killings about why one had 17 bullets in him. '
Because I ran out of bullets...'
17 chances to stop a bomb being remotely detonated, damn right every one would be in use.
The dog, or an armed man for that matter can still injure or kill if wounded. Now I am not suggesting that the police should act in the same way as members of the forces, but a dog running at officers, not one with an opposing thumb that managed to open the door itself, but one that was obviously allowed out the house, has become a weapon to be used by the suspects. Dozens of strange humans on its territory, wearing scary black helmets and face masks, you think it was running towards them to get an ear rubbed?
Yes, the police are
sometimes justifiably accused of over-reacting but they act on intelligence they receive. It would appear, and that is as much as we can speculate on, that they thought suspects who had carried out
armed robberies were within. So they turned up en mass to secure a locus and protect members of the public there as well.
And just for the record, I saw a woman being attacked by her boyfriends German Shephard in a public park many years ago. She sustained several bites to her arms, legs and neck. She died the next day in hospital.
The officer may have missed, but his actions in my opinion were completely justified given the facts as we have them. As was the number of armed police at that locus.
and the dog turned tail and ran behind the house..Maybe he was a dog lover and just wanted to scare it off but his mates are going to give him some stick for that I recon. Apaprebntly the bust was linked to some armed robberies that have taken place around Cheshire so they had been told to shoot to kill if required...Not shoot to scare 
