[Cycl0ps]

If we take this heresay as gospel we have a situation where an on duty officer would have shot the dog, had they thought they could get away with doing so. Additionally they admitted as much in conversation, and I consider speaking about wanting to discharge your weapon during a call to be an action worth note.

Let's raise the stakes for another example. If a cop does a debrief after a routine traffic stop and says, "I was waiting for a reason to shoot this man where he stands", that's a matter of concern. It doesn't matter that the cop did the correct thing this time, because they're showing that the desire to kill someone is the driving force in their actions.

[chmod600]

It doesn't just require taking the story as gospel, you'd also have to take the officers' words as deterministic of their actions (which is dubious at best), and you'd also have to interpret them in the worst possible way.

For instance, you can interpret disappointment in at least two ways:

(A) Disappointment that they were unable to apply lethal force regardless of the situation; or

(B) Disappointment that the situation did not call for lethal force, but had no desire to apply lethal force where it was not required.

You chose (A), but there's really no evidence presented for that interpretation over (B).

This is just another reason we should judge actions rather than words. Actions are much more objective.

[Zxian]

Why is B much better here? It enables the officer to claim they felt threatened when no valid threat existed and then exercise lethal force in self defense (whether or not the threat was valid).

I can't think of any reason why someone should be justifiably disappointed they couldn't apply lethal force.