if the owner of the dog had any sence he would have controled his animal. anything that come on my property and threatens my family is risking it's life.it's insane to expect somone to risk their family for a freakin dog. the second my loved ones are threatened by an animal it forfits it's life, plain and simple. I don't care if the guy was a vet or not he had his kid there and an unknown danger was aproaching. you do not risk your kid in the hope you can outrun something to get into the house.I'm an animal lover,heck I put myself between a bear and my cat so I don't take an animals life lightly but if it's a choice between human and dog dog loses everytime. Also the owner of the dog has a responsibility to control it. why was it on someone elses property?why was it not in the owners control? the owner of the dog bears the responsibility for it's death. it could have just as easily been struck by a car or attack by a feral animal while away from it's owners control.As I said I would counter sue the reckless owner for allowing his dog to scare my family and force me to use deadly force which has effected his family.normaly I wouldn't sue for something like that but obviously this unfit dog owner only understands lawsuits so give him one and a bunch of bad press to boot. that guy would be a social pariah once I was through rakeing him through the PR mud.....
edit; my comments are based on info we have now,obviously if different info comes to light I will rethink my position to acount for the new info.