Snopes called the linked report a "mixture" of true and false information, so they clearly didn't do much research into the history of police officers shooting dogs who posed little or no threat. They have been getting away with it for years, and this is just the latest example of courts willingness to accept any justification if it comes from the mouth of a police officer. This shooting was also far from the most egregious:
Police don't always win in court, but that generally happens when state law is not on their side, or their actions violated the letter of the law with no room for ambiguity, such as shooting a dog just because it was running free after it had returned home:
" Plaintiff’s dog was running loose and being pursued by police officers. However, the dog had already returned home and was calmly sitting in a parked car when the pursuing officers arrived at plaintiff’s home. The officers entered on the plaintiff’s property with the expressed intent of killing the dog. When the officers approached, the dog exited the car and attempted to escape by going to the backdoor step at the end of the home’s garage. The police officers entered the garage and shot the dog with a shotgun."
At least sometimes they'll leave a note (though won't call a vet):
Some of the links are broken, but there are some "good" examples and analysis here:
Unfortunately, the coiner of the term "puppycide" now resides behind a paywall, but you can watch the mini documentary:
Trigger alert! The video is very disturbing as a cop lures a friendly dog with kissing noises and then shoots it:
And now there's a database of dog shootings. Of course, it's not run by the government. They don't give a shit.
They do seem to drive the media conversation: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/10/20/trump-senate-budget-vote-tweets-243983?lo=ap_c1 I...
At least Kentucky tried to cut down on the red tape by having judges pre-sign blank emergency orders... https://reason.com/2019/05/09/kent...