After reading this article and watching the video, why is a straw man argument being presented by the journalist, the family and the cops? So, if the dog “was” a Pit Bull then that justifies the cops in shooting and killing it? Why are all 3 parties debating over whether the dog was a Pit Bull or not? It’s as if the family is trying to prove the dog’s innocence by making sure everyone knows it “wasn’t” a Pit Bull. Well, what else does that imply then? Is everyone implying here that Pit Bulls are guilty and deserving of taking bullets to the face? This dog (or any dog), Pit Bull or not, doesn’t deserve to be the victim of a cop’s power trip. ALL types of dogs are capable of being innocent bystanders. This type of false debate, false implication, does just as much harm to dogs as a whole as any gun could ever do. RIP Scar.