what are you talking about? one link has absolutely nothing to do with the other. they are totally unrelated.<quoted text>That incident has nothing to do with the policy change.
"The changes come after a highly publicized incident in which officer Thomas Griffin was dispatched to a possible domestic disturbance on East Fifth Street in late April but was sent to the wrong address. There, he encountered resident Michael Paxton and his blue heeler, Cisco".
There is about a 25 pound difference between a mixed Jack Russel and a Blue Heeler. How you thought the two stories were connected to bring about policy change in "lethal force" against a dog is beyond me.
the first link illustrated, that there is in fact a legal context in which the concept of "deadly force" against a non-person exists.
this is a direct contradiction of peter's incorrect asertion to the contrary.
the second link is unrelated to the first and was provided to refute peter's assertion that one could not be convicted of a crime for the use of deadly force against an animal(dog).