I've also watched my own dog go in for the attack - he goes in fast, low, and STRAIGHT. And if he's making any noise, it's a low growl, not a high whine.
But this video showed none of that behavior. The dog lopes around, in a semi-circle, whining.
But this ignores what happened previously - the dog's owner pleaded with the cop to close the door to keep the dog inside. That the dog jumped out of the car is a forseeable consequence. The officer's are negligent.
Two sides to every story.
One the one hand, you have five moron cops who refuse to listen, preferring their own automaton procedures, and leave the doors open, when the dog is plainly visible in the rear window of the vehicle (if it were some "dangerous" breed, and pretending that's not a stupid term), while the "perps" are very obviously complying as peacefully and obediently as they can in every way. If the dog gets loose and gets hit by passing traffic, the cops know they'll be sued. Add in the fact that the cops are relayed false information from a dispatcher who can't figure out that robbers wouldn't be throwing money out the window with the wallet. Bad, dumb, procedure-only cops with incompetent support.
On the other hand, the factors leading up to the moment don't matter when you consider whether an officer is justified in shooting at a single moment. The dog exited the car, ran a single wide circle (prancing, to any dog-lover), and was heading straight towards the cop (probably to sniff his pant leg and to try to lick his face... but the cop can't know this or count on it). He had the weapon trained on the pet the entire time, and was solidly (seemed almost too) professional about it. Once it got within striking (licking) distance, he shot. I can see how a board of reviewing officers, even those who aren't knee-jerk cop-protectors, could see the tenth-of-a-second decision to shoot as a justifiable one.