“It seems to be authorized behavior.”
Yes, it is definitely authorized behavior, or maybe more accurately, standard operating procedure. They have adopted the philosophy that it’s proper to shoot a citizen’s dog, whether it poses a real threat or not, just to preserve the theoretical safety of the officer.
I think the same type of idea is at play in a lot of the police abuses that are happening lately. For example, the excessive tasering of nonviolent suspects. This is not a random phenomenon, but the result of police officers being trained to preserve their own safety as the highest priority. So, they will naturally tend to escalate to a taser rather than try to physically restrain someone, and it seems increasingly, rather than just talking to someone.
We’ve gotta find DAs with enough sand to prosecute these tresspassing vandals. If you have a warrant and are at the correct place, you ought to also show cause for why you shot a dog or otherwise damaged property. And, no, your word is not good enough. As for showing up at the wrong house, they oughtta be subject to the exact same laws that’d land me in trouble for breaking and entering, vandalism, terroristic threats, assault with a deadly weapon, destruction of property, puppycide, etc.
You just wun yer war on drugs.
If one is that frightened for one's safety, DON'T BE A COP, A**HOLE!