[dragnet2]

And how exactly was the dog “about to bite” the officers considering the dog was shot *in the back of the head*?

Mr. zin explained all this!

He said the cops separated because this is the tactical way things are done, and the cop that was allegedly threatened decided not to shoot the dog, however the cop that was not threatened shot the dog. But the cop that shot the dog in the back of the head like the article said, did not actually shoot the dog in the back of the head, but actually shot the dog on the rear side of the head...

See, perfectly clear...xzins said so!

[xzins]

“She was walking by and went 'ruff ruff' just a couple of little ruffs and that's when she was walking by she didn't jump at him or anything,” explained Adams. Other witnesses to the incident described the dog as barking and snarling at officers as it approached them. Stropkai tells KTVB she let Kita outside to use the bathroom and she was in her sight when the officer made an instant decision. “In about five seconds he pulled his weapon, asked whose dog it was, and shot her in the back of the head,” said Stropkai. Stropkai explains her two-year-old son Hayden was also witness to the shooting. “Hayden was outside, about two feet away from me,” said Stropkai's mother, Michelle Pierott. McClure said the two officers were standing in a parking lot when one decided to fire a single shot at the dog when it came within three feet of them. Kita, a mixed breed, was hit and died at the scene.

Read it again. It doesn't say which officer shot the dog. It doesn't even say that "one felt threatened and that one shot the dog". It says the dog threatened "them" and one of the officers shot the dog.

Which officer was threatened: A or B or Both?

Which officer shot the dog: A or B?

Apparently, even an idiot can get your 60,000 bucks.

dragnet wrote to Mr Zin...(my name by the way, so thank you): You’re an idiot... Take care.