Did anyone even read the article? You are assuming the officer did what was stated out of malice or ill handling and that it caused the death of the dog. Both points are being disputed and thus the trial.
The officer did not say he hated the dog, someone else stated that he did. It's interesting that one is automatically given the presumption of truth and fact, while the other who has years of experience, training, and a good solid reputation as a K-9 handler is given the presumption of guilt, based on one persons testimony who may or may not have any experience in dog handling at all, much less handling a malinois with high drive that may or may not have been coming up leash on its handler. 200 stitches to his face the last time a dog come up leash on him, according to the article. Let a dog do that to you and see how you react the next time it happens. That is assuming that the information presented in the article is "the whole truth and nothing but the whole truth," which of course, it never is. It's always slanted, and usually slanted in the way the public prefers to see.
|