Shooting an animal in the line of duty justified if the animal is putting the officer in danger of severe bodily injury or death? How anyone can even argue to the contrary is a complete mystery to me. Criminals aren't as stupid as we are lead to believe and they use dogs for protection. They are equal to a deadly weapon.
There will always be extenuating circumstances in the line of duty. A police officer cannot always sacrifice a human life for the life of an animal; this also applies if a civilian or officer is being threatened by an animal. However, careless weapon discharge and lack of regard for animal life can be a definite problem.
A raging pitbull. A dog with rabies. Some police officers encounter these situations on a regular basis when they are called by alarmed citizens looking for animal control. In some cases, the animal in question will be shot, because the police officer deems the animal to be too much of a risk for either its human owner and/or other people. But the first choice should never be killing the creature. Instead of resorting to violence, a police officer should take the responsibility of considering other options, such as treating a disease or putting the animal in a shelter.
This is wrong. I don't believe that shooting an animal in the line of duty is justified. We are not supposed to assume the law regardless of who we are. Therefore, the shooting of more than one hundred dogs combined by the Detroit Police was not the right thing to do. They should face the law.