“What pot growing operation?”
It says it was a pot “bust,” so I assume he was arrested for something, probably the pot growing. But I do have to infer that, because the article seems to be written just to make us hate police and love drug dealers.
This man may be innocent, I don’t know. His dogs presumably were. But the article is stupid, and IF a man keeps his dogs around at his pot growing operation, he should not be surprised if they get hurt or killed. If not by the cops, then by fellow growers/dealers. It’s real out there.
You are condemning the man for breaking the law without a shred of evidence against him.
By the way, do you realize that under our current drug laws, a good number of the founding fathers would be in prison?
So you are basing his guilt on a headline writing sub-editer no more knowlegable about the incident than you are.
You are basing your wild flight of fantasy on the assumption "the police can do no wrong".
I am going on (apart from basic presumption of innocence) the situation when the Police PR clamps down and releases no information about their success, it's because they probably screwed up.
Now if I wanted to I could spin the passive phrase "looking for marijuana" that it was for their personal consumption, their snitch gave the name of a supplier (falsely), when they found there was no pot there, they got shirty. And because they are no longer allowed to beat up snitches, they shot some dogs. It fits the reported facts.