I know German Shepherds pretty well. I happen to love them - that’s why I run the ping list. Reality: people are scared of GS, and there is a reason for that, even if it’s just because they’re in MIL/police duty all the time. Even if the dog is a dope (like mine), a scared person can trigger protective instincts, just because (”ah, you must be guilty then”).
The dog didn’t bite the officer YET - but may have. He was (theoretically) protecting himself. Again, only difference is a gun. If your neighbor had a gun while he was walking up to pay you a social visit, and was charged by this dog repeatedly, he may’ve shot him, too, before an actual bite. What then?
Point is, a dog may bite someone. I already stated it DOESN’T MATTER if it’s his/your property - you are going to get slapped with a lawsuit. It may fall through as not your fault, but it will be there, period, with all the inconveniences and nuisance.
Likewise, loose on open property is not “secure”. There needs to be a fence, etc. Apparently there wasn’t.
Bottom line: always makes sense to truly control your dog and bring her with you.
We don’t know that the dog charged anyone. That’s the officer’s side of the story, and the officer’s side of the story includes statements that the dog’s owner insists he never made.
One of the sides is lying about the circumstances. The question is, do we assume that the officer who shot the dog is being truthful about the circumstances, or do we assume that the law-abiding owner is being truthful about the circumstances?