“On what basis does it seem to you that the dog’s owner deliberately put them in harm’s way? “
He kept dogs at his pot growing operation.
I pick that up from the word “bust,” in the very poorly written article. I could be wrong. But my general statement, that pot growers should not be surprised if their dogs get hurt or killed, is not wrong. He endangered his dogs. That was a bad thing to do.
On what evidence do you submit that there was a "pot growing operation"?
The word "pot" appears in the title, but nowhere else in the article, and there is no mention of a "growing operation" anywhere in evidence.
What is the thought process that results in making statements of fact without any apparent evidence to back them up?
On what evidence do you submit that there was a "pot growing operation"?
The word "pot" appears in the title, but nowhere else in the article, and there is no mention of a "growing operation" anywhere in evidence.
What is the thought process that results in making statements of fact without any apparent evidence to back them up?
The words “pot” and “bust” appear only once in the article’s title, and are never repeated again in the article.
There is *no* substantive evidence that any pot or other drugs were found at the residence.
The only crime known to have occurred at the residence is the unlawful slaughter of the man’s dogs.
Put yourself in his shoes. Do you want someone to say of you “well, the police said they were engaged in a pot bust/child porn bust/porn ring bust, therefore, that Persevero guy *must* have been guilty and put all minors and pets at his residence in harm’s way”?