He pointed out that there is an extreme lack of information being presented.
The article makes an assertion that the police are completely at fault, without substantiating that accusation.
He asks for more information, points out the obvious holes in the information that's been presented, and points out that the facts might very well point to the woman not being as innocent as she's made out to be, but the comment is conditioned on needing more information.
You jump in and insist that the person who is asking for more information needs to prove what he's asking for more information about so he can form a reasoned opinion on the situation.
Of course he can't prove it or disprove it. That's why he's asking for more information.
You're very concerned that he might deduce that she's a drug dealer on the basis that there was a no-knock warrant served on her address, yet you appear to have no problem with the accusations that these police officers burst in on her without cause and without properly identifying themselves without any evidence provided.
It doesn't appear to bother you that they are basically being accused of murder under the color of law, and he shouldn't dare ask things like if the address was correct, and sufficient evidence was provided to get a no-knock warrant, were drugs found? Was she involved?
You are correct that we shouldn't assume her guilt or innocence based on the information provided. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't question the situation the author depicts and propose different scenarios as possibilities.